Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3265
HOMEBREW Digest #3265 Sat 04 March 2000
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:
re: more pitching rates ("Paul Niebergall")
georgia brews ("Czerpak, Pete")
Mt Pleasant Water (happydog)
FWH ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
Re: Yeast Growth ("Stephen Alexander")
pitching and feathering. ("Stephen Alexander")
Palexperiment Labwork (Louis Bonham)
Acid washing+NOT ! re: Misquote or misunderstood ("Stephen Alexander")
Starter Volume and Flavor Profile / OG (David Sweeney)
IPA (Marc Sedam)
Ferm chamber ("Spies, Jay")
Re: Yeast Ranching on a larger scale (patrick finerty)
Quick Disconnect for Sanke Co2 line (Tombrau)
Palexperiment and underpitching ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
Underpitching your belgian ale (Nathan Kanous)
Soapy Sam ("Alan Meeker")
RE: Underpitching your belgian ale ("Penn, John")
Monterey (Mark Swenson)
Palexperiment (Jason Henning)
Throwing gasoline (Jim Liddil)
Re: How Soapy Flavors Occur / KINETIC vs. KISS ("John Palmer")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* AOL members: Visit the AOL Homebrewing boards before they're gone!
* Go to aol://5863:126/mBLA:185893
* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:19:03 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: re: more pitching rates
Jeff writes:
>However, the smack packs were the new (at the time) XL size ones
>and were also about 2 or 3 weeks old when we received them.
You would be amazed at the number of people who e-mailed me
and mentioned that the Smak-Packs used in the
Palexperiment were the XL size. I purposefully left that
detail out of my discussion. The point was to see how many
people would jump the fence and claim that since it was an XL
size smak pack that is wasn't so bad. I checked the archives.
Many of the people who are now claiming that the
underpitching in the Palexperiment wasn't so bad because
they used XL smak paks (instead of standard smak-paks)
are the same people who a few years back, raked Wyeast
(and others) over the coals for suggesting that the new
XL size smak-paks were adequate for pitching into a 5-gallon
batch. I love the way people on the HBD talk out of both sides of
their mouths at the same time. Shall I name names?
>Most of the data provided by the brewers and Louis' lab test results
>are available online .......
We should all thank Louis for the work that he did. Again, I am not
trying to bag on Louis himself, but the results of the experiment did not
prove anything one way or the other concerning the relationship
between so-called underpitching and the production of bad home brew.
I am not sure if what was done can be defined or even qualifies as
an "experiment" in a scientific sense. As far as I can tell, there was
no control, no QA, no QC, and no real statistical treatment of the
results. What we get are some fairly generic
conclusions that are pretty much in line with the prevailing theory of
the day on the HBD: Underpitching leads to long lags, leads to
bad beer. While this probably is true, the "experiment" does not confirm
or deny this. All we are left with is a somewhat casual relationship
between supposed underpitching and supposed problems with 45
beer samples.
<Jens Jorgensen set up a dedicated listserve for the Palexperiment.
>If you were to go back and review the archives of this listerve you
>would see plenty of complaints about excessive lags times and funky off
>flavors attributed to it by the brewers.
Complaints, funky off-flavors, and "excessive" lag times are neither
defined nor quantified. How anyone could possibly
interpret these vauge qualities as scientific results is beyond me.
>I've been reading the HBD for years and I don't ever recall anyone saying
>that severely underpitching will cause "a plethora of problems that would
>render the beer undrinkable." Paul, would you care to search the archives
>and find a quote that even remotely backs up this statement?
A direct quote? Sorry, I cant furnish that. Something the "remotely"
backs that up? Geez, take a look at the last five years worth of
HBD issues and you will find plenty of examples. I think that most would
agree that hardly a week goes by were someone doesn't point out the
purported woe that will be bestowed upon he is foolish enough to underpitch.
>Since the Palexperiment I have taken a hard look at my yeast management
>techniques. I have read the advice of the "expurts" here in the HBD and
>have adapted it to my brewing at a level that I feel comfortable with.
>Guess what? My "house flavor" is now below my flavor threshold and my beers
>have improved quite a bit. I'll leave it to the interested readers to
>figure out what I changed.
Good for you. I applaud your efforts. But your actions really are not based
on science or "experiments'' are they now? They are more likely based on
experience and some good sound advice found in the HBD.
Advice that is backed up with a lot of pseudo-science and B.S.
Take the advice, leave the B.S. alone.
Paul Niebergall
Burns & McDonnell
pnieb@burnsmcd.com
"Illegitimis non carborundum"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:25:15 -0500
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak@siigroup.com>
Subject: georgia brews
I am going to be in Atlanta late next week for business. Can anyone
recommend some decent pubs to visit or beers to try. restuarant suggestions
are welcome too.
I wouldn't mind getting together for a brew session with any HBDers either
afterwork or on the wkend as I'll be around from wednesday night until
sunday.
Thanks,
Pete Czerpak
Albany, NY
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:25:07 GMT
From: happydog@nations.net
Subject: Mt Pleasant Water
With all the talk about water, perhaps some of you water guys in the
know might that a look at my water in Mt. Pleasant SC.
It can be found at http://www.cleanh20.com/wqinfo.html
The first three columns (RO Plant 1 King St, RO Plant 2 7th Ave, RO
Plant 3 Labor Camp) are the most important to me, However all the
water is blended so I would guess I get an average of all of them (see
web page)
e-mails are ok
Thanks
Wil Kolb
Happy Dog Brewing Supplies
401 W.Coleman Blvd
Mt Pleasant SC 29464
843-971-0805
Fax 843-971-3084
1-800-528-9391
happydog@nations.net
www.maltydog.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:38:02 -0600
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders@paddockwood.com>
Subject: FWH
Bill Bunning <bunz@pcola.gulf.net> asks how exactly do I "first wort hop"?
Hi Bill,
I add the hops (usually plugs for FWH) to the collecting kettle as I am
doing the run-off from the lauter. Since it usually takes me about 40
minutes to do a run off, they steep for that amount of time. FWH will
contribute about the same bitterness as beginning of the boil additions,
since they get transferred to the kettle and boiled, but they will
contribute substantially more flavour and aroma than regular boil additions.
East Kent Goldings are very nice, as are Target and Challenger for British
Ales. I FWH instead of dry hopping with these.
Cheers,
Stephen Ross -- "Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat."
______________________________________________
Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK
orders@paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:04:25 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Yeast Growth
Richard L Scholz writes ...
>So Steve, You're saying that the 9-10 generations of yeast run into
>nutritional deficiencies due to the need of these growth constituents, but
>not just because they are the late generations.
I think you mean a 9 or 10 fold increase in yeast mass (typical ale
rates ??) , not 9 or 10 generations. No ?
For normal ale conditions and pitching rates yeast, the yeast hit
a growth limit at around 10 fold increase in mass or cell count. On a good
day lack of fermentable sugar is the limiting growth factor. On a bad day
the limit is sterol or something more ominous. The limit is not directly
related to the multiplicitive increase(10X). The growth limit appears
as a direct consequence of the sugar or sterol disappearance. These
disappear as a consequence of the sugar energy and carbon being
used to build new cell mass, or sterol being used as free sterol
in new cell walls (proportional to cell mass). If you vastly underpitch,
then it will take more multiplications to reach the same limit. If you
pitch more it will take fewer multiplications. Regardless of the
multiplication factor, if the sterol growth limit is reached there are
consequences which may impact flavor.
>The fermentation flavor by-products are due to lack of nutrients not
>the dividing of the available growth constituents?
You simplify too much. Yeast have many byproducts from various
mechanisms that can be related to many different aspects yeast culture.
Ethanol and CO2 are directly related to fermentation. Some are proportional
to cell mass growth. Some only appear when certain aspects of their
metabolism are exercised (e.g. when amino acids run out and
other nitrogen sources must be utilized for growth). Still other flavor
consequences are due to autolysis and so relate to many factors that
can affect autolysis.
Basically I proposed that flavor by-products of yeast are
primarily determined by their state and that of their medium
and unrelated to multiplication factor or the generational
number.
The nutritional state of the cells and their media change over time
in the case of batch fermentation, but there are many complexities to
these changes. This is why chemostat continuous cultures are used for
metabolic studies. Some changes are due to depletion of the
media nutrients. Other complications arise such as build-up of CO2
and ethanol byproducts which impact growth and metabolism. What
controls organic acid production ? That's a big flavor factor. Many others
difficulties beyond our scope.
>Yes, if we continually add these things we get great
>yeast growth and bad flavors for other reasons,
I don't understand this. Bad flavors for what other reason ?
Continuous fermentation has been practiced commercially.
It adds nutrients in the form of wort continuously, yet doesn't
have bad flavor consequences. You essentially step-wise
add nutrients when you start with a slant or a smack pack
and end up with a yeast cake in your fermentor. I don't
understand the harm you suggest, except that distortion
of the nutrients concentrations (high or low) can affect metabolism,
but this shouldn't occur in a controlled continuous condition.
Oxygen and some fermentation byproducts don't mix of
course.
>but in "green" beer we are
>limited by the original concentrations and too many generations of yeast
>will deplete the available nutrients and lead to these fermentation flavor
>by-products.
I think you mean wort, not green [unconditioned post fermentation] beer.
Otherwise I've missed your point.
The amount of nutrients in the wort and also in the pitched yeast reserves
together form a basis for the limits of growth of the yeast mass. This
limit will be the same whether you pitch 1 cell or 10^9 cells, tho' the
multiplication factor and number of generations will be vastly different.
>Seem to me just about the same result. I don't think Roger A. was disputing
>the mechanism, ( were you Roger?) just the implications that many
>generations finally producing these flavor components from the depletion of
>available resources.
I think the mechanism IS truly the issue. Numerically multiplication factor
cannot be directly related to the mechanism I suggested.
To re-frame things, I argued that HB books that suggest
underpitching causes poor flavor due to additional yeast
growth mass are probably wrong. I estimated that even vastly
underpitching might only cause an additional 33% yeast mass growth
and that this seems insufficient to cause the pronounced effects.
Roger noted that the growth MULTIPLICATION FACTOR differs
vastly in the examples I gave - and stated that this correlates with
the amount of flavor by-products. He proposed no mechanism, nor
can I imagine any.
I responded and added that *A* likely mechanism of some
underpitching off-flavor is that the total potential sterol (from yeast
reserves, O2 and wort sterol) is decreased by the amount of the
lesser pitched yeast sterol reserves. This can limit growth and does
no good for alcohol or temperature tolerance fermentation rate,
attenuation and *maybe* autolysis.
This cannot be interpreted to mean that multiplication
factor is a direct correlate of this sterol limited growth problem.
It really doesn't matter a bit whether your yeast multiply by a factor of 4
or 10 or 1000. What does matter is that when the total the potential
sterol reserves are depleted, that this particular problems condition
begins.
It easy to understand that sterol consumption in cell membranes
(as opposed to reserve sterol esters, not in membranes) is directly
proportional to the amount of new yeast cell membrane and so the yeast
mass growth. I find no relationship between the multiplication factor and
the depletion of sterols except the trivial and indirect one - yeast growth
always implies a higher multiplication factor.
>Just trying to understand the whole process.
Same here Richard,
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:29:05 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: pitching and feathering.
Mark Staples writes
>My reseach shows a gram of dry yeast is roughly 14,000,000,000 cells.
>Based on that I calculate a rate 4 grams per gallon for 1.050 beer to
>be about right.
More like 1.5gm/gal, your yeast dry mass estimate is high but not out
of sight. That's 7.5gm per 5gal, versus Rob Moline's 10gm/5gal
suggestion.
Cells weigh about 40*10^-12 gm (M&BS). Recommended pitching
rate for ales is abt 10^7 cells/ml. Fix suggests 0.75*10^6c/ml^P for
ales, so 0.94*10^7c/ml for your 12.5P wort, close enough. Call
it 10^10cell/L
40*10^-12gm * 10^10 cell/Liter = 0.4 gram per liter, or 0.375gm/L for Fix.
as a recommended rate.
I'd like to know what the viable cell count for rehydrated dry yeast in
order to calculate a good pitching rate tho'. Anyone with a hemocytometer
care to help out ? Or perhaps Rob Moline can provide a number.
====
Paul Niebergal notes that he PA experiment pitched only a
Wyeast pack. What Paul failed to mention was the
experiment notes say: "new Wyeast American Ale extra
large smack-pack ". These are 175ml packs (5X).
Wyeast page claims: "Average cell counts are 35 - 75 X 10^8/ ml"
At that rate you could hit 10^7c/ml in 5 gallons with
25-54ml of smack-pack.
*If* the cell count is as claimed then the PA-exp ales are OVERpitched!
Seems unlikely though - I doubt the cell count.
What is obvious is that the underpicthing rate is not at all clear,
and the flavor/infection consequences are not at all trivial.
>Maybe we should all take
>a good hard look at some real data.
I did. There is something wrong with your definition of
underpitching and Pivo's too.
If you want to test for under vs nominal pitching, we'll have to measure
viable cell concentrations.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 05:12:23 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@hbd.org>
Subject: Palexperiment Labwork
Hi folks:
Paul Niebergall has still more questions regarding the
contamination data collected in the Palexperiment. While
most of his questions could easily be answered by actually
reading the BT article and the table summary of the lab data
rather than hypothesizing about it (novel concept, no?), as
this is a current topic of discussion I'll answer some of
them:
> HUGE? Now there is a scientific term. Can you please
> quantify what you mean by HUGE. Are you talking about
> colonies per milliliter or some other measurement?
Again, read the article. Given that, from about 0.5ml
spread plated onto LMDA, about half the plates had more than
100 colonies (and many of these were so contaminated that
the plate was a continuous mass of colonies) and that the
vast majority had counts well above the recommended
commercial limits, there can be little doubt that the there
were significant levels of contamination present. Compound
this by the fact that we didn't use 0.45um membrane
filtration of 100mls of beer (ASBC methodology) to
concentrate the cell counts (on advice of two actual experts
in this field -- Drs. Paul Fanrnsworth and Katie Kunz -- we
simply spread about 0.5ml of sample on each plate), and
these counts probably *understated* the contamination levels
by a factor of over 100, if you want to use ASBC methodology
and commercial quantification of contamination levels.
While the stresses placed on the beers probably exacerbated
the problem (again, read the article), I think it's safe to
say the contamination levels encountered were huge, at least
by commercial standards.
> Was there any quality assurance or control built into the
> laboratory testing program?
Several blank plates were exposed in the area we were using
to innoculate the plates. They came out clean (no growth).
The samples were taken immediately after opening using
aseptic techniques (crowns first cleaned with alcohol and
bottle lip flamed, then sample poured into gamma sterilized
50ml centrifuge tubes and sealed, then 0.5 ml sample taken
from tubes with gamma sterilized transfer pipettes (used
once and discarded) to spread the sample onto the LMDA
plates, which were unwrapped immediately before each use,
opened for the absolute minimum time needed to innoculate
the plate, and immediately sealed with parafilm to guard
against cross contamination).
The results obtained indicate that these procedures were
adequate for the task. Nine of the samples showed *no*
growth at all -- which to me is a pretty good indication
that there was no systemic problem in our procedures. The
wide range of contaminants encountered -- indeed, even the
strains of pediococcus found were quite different -- also
indicates that our results were not from sloppy handling.
> Maybe all the samples were contaminated across the board
> due to shoddy lab techniques . [snip]
Again rather than guess about them, why don't you simply
read the article? If you did, you'd see that such was not
the case: about 25% plated out with no growth at all.
As for the balance of Paul's missive, I'll leave it to the
HBD collective to actually *read* the article and data and
make up their own minds of whether our data and conclusions
are useful.
Louis Bonham
lkbonham@hbd.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:49:11 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Acid washing+NOT ! re: Misquote or misunderstood
NP. Lansing says ...
[The point I was making was that such stringent microbiologic controls
weren't a necessity for good beer.]
Actually you stated that commercial concerns don't do better than the
Danstar figures. Untrue.
[Dr. Fix gives a spec of <50 cells per ml to be regarded as "clean", ]
I agree that 50/ml is a generally acceptable limit Doesn't mean
it can't be improved on. Some infections agents, like S.turbidans
can have a negative impact at 0.5 cells per ml. M&BS comments
that 10-40 cells is generally acceptable, but that there is no safe
level of S.diastaticus or lactic bacteria. Cleaner is always better,
and Danstars <16cells/ml ain't heaven.
[
>>Acid washing causes problems for the cell walls of the yeast
and abnormal budding - among other things. It's pretty unlikely that
they could adapt to this.<<
Why not? cold temperatures (approaching 32 degrees) produces "no growth"
in S. Cerevisiae, yet repeated storage at these temperatures gave us a new
yeast, S. Uvarum. Twenty years of repitching and acid-washing (and the
occasional dumping of a "bad" batch) could select an acid tolerant strain.
]
Do you hang with a guy named Jean-Baptiste de Monet de Lamarck ?
Something yeast-like could evolve a greater resistance to acid washing
BUT they would require a different cell wall structure. It's pretty
radical and unlikely to be useful for brewing. What happens to the
flocc. characteristics ?
[
>>If your breweries
are seeing those problems disappear after acid washing, then
infection is the source of the problem.<<
That is purely conjecture.
]
Not conjecture. It's based on the fact that acid washing is only prescribed
as a method of reducing non-yeast (not wild yeast) infections. Additionally
it removes dead cells and trub. If you can find a reference to any other
value in acid washing such as your attenuation improvement, I'd be
happy review it. Acid washing does impact flocculation - by destroying the
cell wall surface properties temporarily. Not good IMO.
I can back up my statement see M&BS pp 767, or 'Yeast Technology',
(Reed et al) pp115-116. Both sources suggest it's a poor procedural
practice. There is a comment in the most recent IoB examination
report (JIB v105,#6, 1999, pp338) noting astonishment that acid washing
is apparently widely practiced by examinees.
In the article at:
http://brewpubmag.com/99sep/craftbrewer.html
They note some good reasons for not acid washing regularly.
/ If acid washing is carried out incorrectly, yeast vitality and
viability can be negatively affected, potentially causing more
problems than are solved.
/ Highly flocculent yeast, such as ale yeast, tends to suffer a
loss in flocculation.
/ Yeast taken from a high-gravity fermentation (ethanol content of
the slurry more than 8 percent by volume) tends to suffer a loss of
vitality. Yeast from beers of this gravity should not be reused.
/ High-gravity wort pitched with an acid-washed yeast can experience
a longer lag time than the same yeast pitched in a lower-gravity wort.
This occurs because of a slower uptake of glucose and maltose in
the high-gravity wort, according to "Effects of High-Gravity Brewing and
Acid Washing on Brewers Yeast", a report published in the American
Society of Brewing Chemists journal, volume 56, number 1.
The authors, S. Cunningham and G.G. Stewart, also found a small drop in
viability during the first few hours of fermentation when acid washed yeast
is added to high-gravity beer (greater than 14^ Plato).
/ Every step in handling yeast is another opportunity to introduce
contamination. If acid washing it not carried out in a clean vessel
and under sanitary conditions, more contamination can be introduced
than will be eliminated from the process.
This site and the wyeast website but give procedures, comparable to Dave
Burley's method.
Also see the BT article at:
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.4/allen.html
for a similarly cautious (even negative) viewpoint regarding acid washing
from the folks at Pike's Place Brewery.
It's a bandaid IMO. It has some value as a rescue effort in commercial
practice. It's more nuisance that it's worth at the HB level. Why not just
spend a few days reculturing, or buy a new yeast supply and reduce the
wait.
Also see the water washing technique at
http://hbd.org/brewery/library/yeast-faq.html
Which removes trub and dead cells, but doesn't remove
infection or damage your yeast so critically.
BTW - this last site, 'The Brewery' is a good place to look for those
intermediate level topics that constantly reappear in HBD.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:56:03 -0600
From: David Sweeney <David@stulife2.tamu.edu>
Subject: Starter Volume and Flavor Profile / OG
Am I missing something here? We've had recommendations from several people
to pitch at a rate of up to 4 liters per 5 gal batch. That's approximately
15-20% of the total volume. Now, if I spend all this time brewing a wort
that has just the right balance of all the right things, isn't a 10-20%
increase in volume from a starter going to change the flavor profile of the
batch significantly? How are you super-pitchers out there creating your
starter wort? Are you using extract? DME? Mother's milk? Do you change the
makeup of your starter wort based upon the beer you intend to pitch it in?
And another thing - how do you calculate your OG when you pitch a gallon
into your perfectly dense batch? "Let's see...hmmm...this is an IPA, the
wort is at 1.050 - perfect. Now, I'll just pitch this gallon of starter in
here---OOOPS! - 1.030!" (I'm using hyperbole here, guys! No flames,
please.)
I've made starters by stepping up a smack-pack to approximately 500mls by
dissolving 1/4c of pale extract into 2 cups of H20, boiling and then using a
22oz bottle with an air-lock for a couple of days. Now I'm trying to figure
out if I need to change my process.
David Sweeney
Texas A&M University
david@stulife2.tamu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:53:00 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: IPA
Hey David:
I'll give you mine. It's precious to me, but gets rave
reviews.
9lbs Maris Otter 2-row
1lb wheat malt
1lb Victory
8oz Carapils (omit if you want)
MASH
Adjust water chemistry to mimic Burton on Trent. I don't
know what your water looks like, but try 2-3 T of "Burton
Salts". That should do the trick. If you have hard water,
just add a few T of calcium sulfate.
Single-step infusion at 156F. Raise to 172 at mash-out.
HOPS
boil for 15 minutes without hops, then add the following
(time given before KO)
60 min-- 1oz EKG, 1oz N.Brewer
40 min-- 1/2oz EKG, 1 oz. N. Brewer
20 min-- 1oz EKG
5 min-- 1/2 oz EKG
Run cool wort through a bed of 1-2 oz of EKG whole flower
hops. Dry hop with an additional ounce of EKG if you've got
it in you.
YEAST
Wyeast 1275 (Thames Valley)
It kicks major ass. This was supposed to be the subject of
a BT experiment, but they went under before I could do
anything with it. The gravity should be around 1.065.
Depending on your extraction efficiency, adjust low OG's
with brown sugar. Trust me, it works. Enjoy!
-Marc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:59:03 -0500
From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: Ferm chamber
All -
Troy Hager's comments about his fermenting chamber (what a project) got me
thinking again about an idea I've been kicking around for awhile.
I have a small dorm-size "cube refrigerator" in the basement that I'm not
using, and I hit upon the idea of making a temperature controlled fermenting
chamber out of it. I already have a Johnson Controls thermostat. I would
start by removing the door of the fridge, and building a heavily insulated
plywood "box" that the fridge's open side would jut into by an inch or so.
I would caulk around the joint to seal it up. This box would be big enough
to hold four 6-gallon carboys with airlocks, and would likely open from the
top so that peeking in to check activity would not dump all the cold air. I
would place a thermostat controlled computer fan inside to circulate the air
when the fridge is "on". I would probably use this mainly to hold ale
fermentation in the mid 60's, but I'm wondering if:
1) It would be powerful enough to bring temps down into the lager range
(50's - 40's). I already have a regular spare full-size beer fridge, but
since the SO insisted that the freezer portion be cold enough to freeze
meats and veggies and the like, I can't use it for lager *fermentation*, but
I do use it for cold conditioning (it's about 36dF).
2) The computer fan would adequately circulate the air in the box.
3) It would even work at all.
Thoughts would be appreciated.
:)
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:57:03 -0500 (EST)
From: patrick finerty <zinc@zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Yeast Ranching on a larger scale
Richard Gontarek asks about yeast ranching:
i too keep 15% glycerol stocks in our -80C freezer. now and then i
will scrape off a 'chunk' of frozen material and streak that on a YPD
plate. after incubating the plate at 30C until the colonies are a
reasonable size, i wrap the plate in parafilm and stick it in a light
proof container in our 4C cold room. when i want to make a starter i
just scrape off a section of colonies and use that to innoculate some
media. in the past i've started with ~10 ml YPD but this last time i
innoculated right into 250 ml and this seems to have worked just fine.
the plates should be good for some time. however, i personally think
it's important to keep them away from fluorescent lights. i know of
phage libraries that have been killed due to storage by fluor lights
in a cold box.
-patrick in toronto
- --
"There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer
finger pfinerty@nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key
http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:14:05 EST
From: Tombrau@aol.com
Subject: Quick Disconnect for Sanke Co2 line
Wort Brothers
I use both ball lock and sanke taps in my homebrewery and have grown tired of
swapping co2 lines back and forth. Also having the co2 bottle "hardwired" to
the tap and faucet is awkward at times.
It hit me the other day. Attach a carbonater to the "in" side of the sanke
tap so that my ball lock co2 fitting would plug right on. Now I don't have to
swap fittings on my co2 bottle to work between tap types!!!
Of course, it did not just screw on. The carbonater was to big for the beer
nut threads. So I cut the neck off a pet bottle and with liberal thread tape
force threaded it onto the sanke tap and then installed the carbonater.
WOOHOO
I love simplifying my life.
Just thought I would pass on my discovery.
Although I founded Liquid Bread and invented the carbonater , I sold Liquid
Bread several years ago and feel I qualify for a quasi no affiliation yada
yada disclaimer.
One last note, I would like to make an open invite to the 11th annual
Sunshine Challenge for entries, judges, sponsors and just plain old
attendees. We have a weekend of fun and parties wrapped around the largest
homebrew competition in the S.E. Ray Daniels and Greg Noonan are our Guest
of Honor's this year. Also as a sales point to the missus the event is held
across the street from Universal Studios. Mark your calender for May 19-21.
For more info go to www.cfhb.org
Cheers
Tom Moench
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:02:40 -0500
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: Palexperiment and underpitching
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 Alan Meeker wrote about underpitching:
>Certainly "mommilies" exist but I doubt that this is one of them given the
>sheer weight of informed opinion out there favoring larger pitch rates.
>Still, this ain't religion so revision is certainly possible. Unfortunately
>the burden of proof is on those who disagree with the current accepted
>practice.
Are you sure it isn't religion? With the fervor that some of these threads
hit, I'd say it comes pretty close! We probably should shuck our red
inquisitor's robes and do some real, unbiased investigations into some of
these debated topics. It's probably not as much fun as participating in
underpitch auto-de-fay or a FWH racking - but it *IS* more productive ;-)
While I have my own convictions regarding many of these topics (either
pre-formed or learned), I am still open to new ideas and theories. As
ridiculous as it may sound to me (eg. Dr. Pivo challenging the commercial
pitching rates) I will still listen. If someone can provide me with
adequate details of their challenging process/theory and objective evidence
to support their claims, I'll try it and judge for myself. My analysis will
be based only upon what is in the bottle/mug. That is the ultimate result
we're after now - isn't it? Until then, I too will cede to the currently
accepted best practices.
BTW, I give much credit to all those who perform these experiments
regardless of whether they are accepted by the majority of this forum or
not. Experimentation costs time and money and to sacrifice either on ANY
volume of beer which has the potential to taste like crap vs. making good
beer with it, deserves recognition.
Maybe I should clean out those 1 gallon jugs and do a little pitching rate
"spurimentation" myself - before I occupy 'em with the sake "spuriment". I
doubt I'll have any trouble finding taste testers ;-)
Glen Pannicke
alehouse.homepage.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:03:17 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Underpitching your belgian ale
John, et al,
I recently purchased and very quickly read Michael Jackson's Great Beers of
Belgium. One thing that struck me about his writings on Duvel was that
fermentation was allowed to approach 81 deg F. Now, he's not a brewer, but
I have no reason to doubt what he's reported in his books. My experience
with a few of the belgian yeasts is that they really prefer higher
temps. I'm going to ferment a triple or a strong golden this spring and
whichever I do will be fermented a bit warmer than I normally would. Maybe
your fermentation "environment" is a little cool resulting in the yeast
pooping out early.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:17:13 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Soapy Sam
I too have noticed a decidedly soapy taste in Sam Adams and have come to the
conclusion that the source is the Hallertau Mittlefruh hops! Apparently this
particular hop tastes soapy to me. I found this out a ways back when Hoptech
offered some genuine Mittlefruh for sale which Mike Maceyka and I eagerly
jumped on. But, in using these hops I always got a pronounced (and
unpleasant) soapy/perfumy character - the very same character I found in
Sam Adams.
Interestingly, Mike did not get this soap character from the same beers. I
think it is possible that the differences in perceived taste between us may
represent some sort of genetic polymorphism like the well known one
involving cilantro. Cilantro tastes just like dish soap to me but, as with
the Mittlefruh, Mike finds it quite pleasant. This is a common phenomenon -
a significant percentage of the population perceives cilantro as tasting
soapy. There are similar taste perception differences for a whole host of
flavor active compounds - diacetyl being a big on in brewing circles.
Perhaps you remember the classic PTC taste test which was often used in
grade school genetics units. Some people experience an intense unpleasant
bitterness while others taste absolutely nothing.
-Alan Meeker
Director of Salsa Genetic Polymorphism Research
Lazy Eight Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:49:34 -0500
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn@jhuapl.edu>
Subject: RE: Underpitching your belgian ale
Nathan,
I agree that I think the cooler fermentation temperatures could result in
a lower FG. One thing about Duvel yeast is that it isn't very flocculant,
especially compared to Nottingham. I also tried to roust the yeast by
shaking the carboy every day until fermentation really slowed. It seemed to
ferment fairly vigorously especially compared to last year's attempt to
culture Duvel yeast from the bottle. That yeast was a slow and steady
fermenter and took 4 weeks to attenuate a dubbel even at 70F ish. This
yeast seems faster, and spicier than the previous yeast so I have to wonder
whether there are multiple strains in Duvel, a change in bottling yeast
between years, or I have something wild thrown in that produces a reasonable
spicey taste but doesn't attenuate as well. However it does seem to have
the same low flocculation characteristics as last years cultured yeast, it
just tastes and ferments differently. My estimated abv was about 8%.
Thanks for the comments.
John Penn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Kanous [SMTP:nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:03 AM
> To: John.Penn@jhuapl.edu; post@hbd.org
> Subject: Underpitching your belgian ale
>
> John, et al,
> I recently purchased and very quickly read Michael Jackson's Great Beers
> of
> Belgium. One thing that struck me about his writings on Duvel was that
> fermentation was allowed to approach 81 deg F. Now, he's not a brewer, but
>
> I have no reason to doubt what he's reported in his books. My experience
> with a few of the belgian yeasts is that they really prefer higher
> temps. I'm going to ferment a triple or a strong golden this spring and
> whichever I do will be fermented a bit warmer than I normally would.
> Maybe
> your fermentation "environment" is a little cool resulting in the yeast
> pooping out early.
> nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:50:52 -0500
From: Mark Swenson <swenson@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Monterey
I am relocating to Monterey, California next month. I would appreciate
learning more about the Homebrew Scene in the area. If you know the area,
could you send me your impressions? Does the water need treatment? Are
there homebrewers clubs and shops? Any good local beer? Personal replies
are probably best.
Thanks,
Mark Swenson
Key Biscayne, FL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:56:10 -0500
From: Jason Henning <huskers@voyager.net>
Subject: Palexperiment
In HBD3263, Paul Niebergall sites the HBD to debunk problems with under
pitching. I'll use that data from that experiment to show that there are
real problems with under pitching.
Paul says, "Not one reference to off-flavors, bacteria contamination,
undercarbonation, excess esters, phenols, nothing, nada, zippo, zero."
First off, the flavor evaluation team wasn't asked to evaluate beers for
esters, phenols and off flavors. They were asked to find the best beers for
overall flavor, malt flavor and hop flavor. Each person did receive their
score sheets with comments. But the comments weren't matched to the lab
testing. There's only so much you can ask people to do without paying them.
Of 34 sample tested for contamination, 9 were clear of contamination or 26%
showed no contamination. 4 had mild contamination, 6 had were moderate and
15 were severe. A whopping 44% had severe contamination
There were 30 people that reported exact lag times. The average lag time was
32 hours. The shortest was 13 hours and the longest was 62 hours. 22 people
reported lag times of 24 hours or longer. 12 of those folks had lags of 36
or more hours.
Now lets look at finishing gravities. Looking at the finishing gravities of
34 beers tested, the average is 1.0151. There are 5 samples that finished
1.020 or above (1.020, 1.0208, 1.022, 1.0232, 1.0233). That's 14.7% of the
samples finishing 4.9 gravity points above the average.
I'll leave it you to draw conclusions. I think the numbers speak for
themselves.
Cheers,
Jason Henning
Whitmore Lake, MI
[0,0] Rennerian is less than a millisecond away from when I that the
information super highway.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:39:01 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@VMS.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Throwing gasoline
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:11:41 -0600
> From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
> Subject: Lab Work
>
> Did you test control samples of similar wort that were pitched
> with a supposedly "correct" amount (i.e. not underpitched)
> of healthy yeast starter? Maybe all the samples were
> contaminated across the board due to shoddy lab techniques
> (It happens a lot more than you think).
Another control not run was to actually test one of the yeast packages
directly for contamination.
>
> What about quality criteria such as precision, accuracy,
> completeness, representativeness, and comparability?
> There are fairly standard procedures that have been
> established to test for all of these criteria. The results
> of lab blanks, equipment blanks, duplicate samples,
> matrix spike samples, and matrix spike duplicates can
> all be evaluated to assess the quality of the lab work.
> Actual numbers can be assigned to these criteria. The
> numbers can then be evaluated to get a real assessment
> of the lab results. This is far superior to tossing out terms
> such as "significant", "suggests", and "potential" all of which
> really have know place in real science.
>
> Were any statistics done on the lab results? What was
> the confidence level of the results?
>
I agree.
and I did not start this whole thing (if indeed I did) wrt to one
bacterial cell. 1. Wyeast labeled their 3278 as B.bruxellensis, subsequent
testing showed it to be a mixture. Wyeast would not admit it. but
subsequently relabeled the package. The lot of Wyeast wit yeast I got
showed contmination on a level such that when the package was popped the
bacteria overwhelmed the yeast. I obtained 4 packages from a given
package date and all of them were the same. See your above discussion
about stats, qc/qa etc.Certainly I have different standards thatn most of
the world and I admit it.
Oh and after moving fromt he relatively contamination free dry west to the
humid east I find that my anal retnitve /obsessive complusive
cleaning/sanitizing efforts have paid off. I swear in CT in the summer
mold grows to visble levels in minutes. And to Dr Pivo, making fun of
things like OCD isjust like making fun of someone dying of cancer.
Jim Liddil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:37:55 -0800
From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Re: How Soapy Flavors Occur / KINETIC vs. KISS
Tim Burkhart said he experienced soapy flavor in three batches last summer.
He commented that after going all-grain (from partial mash) and switching to
a false bottom boiler that the soapy flavor disappeared, and wondered what
the true cause for the flavor might be.
Soapy flavors are caused by fatty acids in the trub. Chemically, Soap is
defined as the salt of a fatty acid. So, you are actually tasting soap in
your beer. Soapy flavors are most evident when the fermenting beer has sat
on the trub too long, i.e., when the beer has sat in the primary fermenter
too long. "Too Long" depends on the amount of trub that is carried over to
the primary. When I began brewing, and poured the whole (immersion chilled)
boil into the fermenter, and didnt use a secondary fermenter, I would notice
soapy flavors after about 2 weeks in the primary. Switching to the use of a
secodary fermenter and racking after the krausen started to fall (about 3-5
days), solved the soapy flavor problem. I could then let the beer sit in the
secondary until it fell clear (yeast dropped) and then bottle for maximum
clarity.
In short, I think the disappearence of the soapy flavors in your beer is due
to the false bottom in your boiler and the whole hops acting as a filter to
minimize trub carryover.
*****
Hear Hear for AJ's post for equal rights for technogeeks!
While KISS is always a good baseline philosophy, and I have advocated that
position when it comes to targeting a particular beer color, I subscribe
most often to the KINETIC philosophy: Keep It New, Exiciting, Technical, and
an Intellectual Challenge. Because after all, we are doing this hobby for
the fun of it. And Science is Fun!
John Palmer
Monrovia, CA
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3265, 03/04/00
*************************************
-------
