Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3264
HOMEBREW Digest #3264 Fri 03 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: Carboys for primary (KMacneal)
Re: High FG = Low pitch? (KMacneal)
Yeast Ranching on a larger scale (Richard_R_Gontarek)
Palexperiment revisited (Louis Bonham)
10-oz. Bud (mchahn)
Bud/KISS ("A. J. deLange")
Cider? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Forgot to mention... ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Possible Problem with 1999 crop of Cascades ("Peter J. Calinski")
re: 10 oz Budwiser? (Lou.Heavner)
Underpitching? ("Penn, John")
Palexperiment and underpitching ("Alan Meeker")
Lab Work ("Paul Niebergall")
re: pitching rates (Jeff McNally)
a good looking temp controller (J Daoust)
Soapy Taste (Tim Burkhart)
damned 2-5 beer hangovers (Tombrau)
pitching rates in the Great HBD Palexperiment (gradym)
Need IPA Recipe (David Sweeney)
Pet Panties/ Beer related (Paul Haaf)
Temperature Controlled Fermentation/Lagering Chamber ("Troy Hager")
* 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, 2 Mar 2000 06:54:45 EST
From: KMacneal@aol.com
Subject: Re: Carboys for primary
In a message dated 3/2/2000 12:17:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, Brian Myers
writes:
<< Dave Burley says:
>To "Sticky in Colorado" : As long as
>you use a carboy for your primary
>you will run this risk of splooge on the
>ceiling.
I don't agree. I like to use carboys. If I suspect a batch might climb
out of the carboy, I put a piece of aluminum foil over the top rather
than an airlock for the first day or so. It may overflow on to the floor,
but it won't clog the airlock and then explode on to the walls or ceiling.
>>
I also have used carboys for primary (6 gallon carboy, 5 gallon batch).
Blowoff hoses work wonders as well.
Keith MacNeal
Worcester, MA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:06:05 EST
From: KMacneal@aol.com
Subject: Re: High FG = Low pitch?
In a message dated 3/2/2000 12:17:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, Tom Meier
writes:
<< Last batch I used a 1/2 gallon starter on a 1.057 OG stout.
I pitched the starter while the yeast was still in suspension
and there was a good head of foam. Was this too early?
It must have been because I aerated well and it still
finished high at 1.020 FG, even after a secondary ferment.
>>
Other variables besides alleged underpitching/low aeration can cause high FG.
If it was an all grain batch, what was the mash temperature? If it was an
extract, what brand (some brands are notorious for giving high FG)? Is it a
low attenuating yeast strain? Was the fermentation temperature too low
causing the yeast to drop out or go dormant? FWIW, my most recent batch of
stout also finished at 1.020. I pitched from a pint of starter and aerated
by pouring through a strainer and stirring a bit with a spoon when I added
the yeast. Mash temp was a bit on the high side so I'm not surprised at the
high FG (judges have commented that my stouts have been a bit thin so I'm
trying to compensate for that). Fermentation temperature was 68F and I used
Wyeast Irish Ale.
Keith MacNeal
Worcester, MA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:17:05 -0500
From: Richard_R_Gontarek@sbphrd.com
Subject: Yeast Ranching on a larger scale
I'd like to know if anyone can tell me how brewpubs and
small micros ranch their yeast. Do they keep only a few
different strains around and then re-pitch from batch
to batch, or do they buy new yeast every so often?
I am a homebrewer and a biologist, and as I am lucky enough to
have a -80 degree C freezer and lots of other microbiological
supplies at my disposal, I have been ranching my own yeast for
many years now. I have become friends with a brewer at a local
brewpub and I was telling him that I keep many different strains of
yeast in my -80 freezer (stocks made with 15% glycerol). He
was intrigued, and I told him that I could probably keep stocks of
some strains for him. It would be easy enough for me to make
the stocks and store them at -80C, but what about when it comes time
for the brewer to use them? Would I do what I normally do and
just make a small starter and inoccculate with the frozen stock anf keep
stepping-up the starter volume until we get enough yeast for
the brewer to use at his pub?
I know that yeast can remain stable for a long time if frozen in 15%
glycerol at -80C, but would the yeast remain just as viable if stored in
glycerol in a conventional restaurant freezer (even if it does not
freeze solid)? Or would I be better off keeping the yeast on slants so
that the brewer could store them himself in a refrigerator at his pub?
How long can yeast remain viable on a slant?
I'd be especially interested in hearing from those of you with some
larger-scale, commercial brewing experience (GeorgeD.?) I know
that I am going above and beyond the call of duty in supporting
my local brewpub, but this sounds like it could be fun. Plus,
I might get to drink for free at their bar!
TIA for any and all replies,
Rick Gontarek
Owner/Brewmaster
The Major Groove Picobrewery
Trappe, PA
Richard_R_Gontarek@sbphrd.com
RGontare@bellatlantic.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 07:28:08 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@hbd.org>
Subject: Palexperiment revisited
Hi folks:
Paul Niebergall mentions the HBD Palexperiment in referring
to the current discussions regarding underpitching:
> What is interesting about the Palexperiment is that
> clearly
> (by just about anybody's account who subscribes to the
> HBD expurt cult) the beers were underpitched. Yet nowhere
> on the web page nor in the hundreds of lines that were
> subsequently written in the HBD concerning the outcome of
> the experiment, is there any reference to "problems"
> occurring from "underpitching". Not one reference to
> off-flavors, bacteria contamination, undercarbonation,
> excess esters, phenols, nothing, nada, zippo, zero.
Huh? Did you even *read* the article in BT reporting the
lab results, not to mention the tasting results showing
large variations in flavor profiles? The LMDA tests found
HUGE levels of bacterial contamination in a majority of the
beers. And as to whether underpitching could have been the
reason, I wrote the following in my column:
'The high degree of contamination we encountered also
suggests s potential problem with the pitching rates used.
In order to minimize variables, each participant was given a
Wyeast XL pack . . . from the same lot and instructed to
pitch directly from that pack. Despite the manufacturer's
claims that these packages do not require a starter, all the
participants reported lag times of 18 hours or more, and
these longer lag times could have provided bacteria and
other contaminants a window of opportunity to establish a
significant presence. Because pitching large amounts of
healthy yeast minimizes the lag phase and is one of the best
weapons brewers have against bacterial contamination, our
findings suggest that it would probably be a better practice
for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs."
BT, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 24.
As to whether underpitching creates "special" flavors, feel
free to experiment with this if you wish. As for me, I
intend to continue pitching at or above the recommended
commercial pitching rates.
Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham@hbd.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:35:11 -0500
From: mchahn@earthlink.net
Subject: 10-oz. Bud
>Where do you get Bud in 10 oz cans? I've only seen it in 12 oz.....maybe
>the occasional pony sized ones, but, never see a 10 oz can or bottle. Is
>this outside the US?
10-oz. Bud is available in Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and the Eastern Shore of
MD.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:15:09 +0000
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Bud/KISS
Kelly - you've drawn a none existent connection between my colleague's
"Headache in a can" comment and the way in which Bud is served in the
particular establishment where I drink it which is draught. Most
draughts in working men's bars are still 10 oz (to the best of my
knowledge).
Dave - easy there. Bud is hardly "gross and disgusting". I frequently
(and think I did so here recently) compare it to American movies and
television: technically superb but insipid. I do like the qualities of
the yeast strain of which AB is justifyably proud - the crisp fruitiness
(which I'm calling acetaldehyde) is definitely pleasing to me. An
interesting experiment is to "repair" a glass of Bud by putting in a
couple of drops of hops extract. It isn't bad.
* * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul - I hereby acknowledge your right to brew strictly by the KISS
principal (of which I am a big exponent), to discard the experience and
opinions of any or all, to underpitch, to participate in the next local
brewing-text burning and to practice the hobby in any way which gives
you enjoyment. In return I ask for acknowledgement of the right of those
of us who do study the texts, read the journals, perform experiments and
do analysis to discuss what we have learned from the literature, report
our experiences and those of others, and practice the hobby in any way
which give us pleasure (or better beer) which, in my case, often
includes lime treatment, chanting, walking around in circles and, most
recently Karhunen-Loev expansion of beer absorption spectra (this is
really neat).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:04:05 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Cider?
Dick Dunn brought up ciders and mentions,
>>Cider-makers take some pains to get a *slow* fermen-
tation. In short, rapid fermentations produce undesirable results in
cider.<<
Please go into this further, our club does an annual cider pressing
where we produce about 175 gallons of juice that is fermented by
about 30 people with about 30 different methods. One thing that is
nearly universal in all the different batches is hydrogen sulphide.
The press had a spray washer on the conveyor to the chipper for removal of
whatever comes off easily, this certainly wouldn't remove any oil-carried
sulfur
based agricultural spray. Is this one of the "undesirable results" you are
mentioning? I had tried a new method this year where I added nothing and
stored
a cornie keg of juice at 38 degrees F and just waited; after about 6 weeks
it started fermenting. Every week or so I vent the keg a bit just for fun
and out of curiousity. I haven't noticed the everpresent hydrogen sulphide
from this batch.
So am I on the right track? Any tips and hints would be appreciated.
Sipping cider in southwest PA
N.P.L.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:03:56 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Forgot to mention...
In answering Steve...
<< >>If your breweries
are seeing those problems disappear after acid washing, then
infection is the source of the problem.<<
That is purely conjecture. >>
I had gathered a sample from a fermenter that had the manway open
for 8-10 hours waiting for clean out; upon sending a sample to Dr.
McConnell, I received
word from him the sample was "remarkably clean." This from a sample
gathered with
a quart jar that was just sitting around, then poured into a new ziplock
bag before pouring into a sterile vial for shipping.
Thus I will still maintain that proper pitching rates will supercede a
minor contamination; rendering any effects of the wild yeast or bacteria
sub-threshold.
The squawk over 1 "unidentified" cell in a Wyeast pack (where this
started) is only to defame Wyeast for someones personal vendetta. A totally
misguided endeavor, and detrimental to the homebrew community. If we
eliminated all the homebrew yeast producers that didn't deliver 100% pure
yeast; what would we brew with? Who would want to be limited to brewing
nothing but Plambics? 99.9% of homebrewers do not plate out their own
yeasts, and wouldn't brew if that was what was necessary for the hobby.
A reference was made to the PalealeExperiment in yesterdays digest.
I remember reading the results where a significant number of the beers had
pedio
infections, and the conclusion was that these appeared to be kegged beers.
Dip tubes
not being scrubbed clean regularly was the suspect.
Though none of the test beers displayed overt pedio symptoms.
Supporting my assertion that the yeast is relatively insignificant if
pitched
into a improperly sanitized fermenter. Where a _minor_ contamination
probably
won't effect the finished beer; repitching will of course make a
contamination known and the brewer will learn to keep things cleaned and
sanitized. Afterall experience
is the best teacher.
N.P.L.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:07:45 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: Possible Problem with 1999 crop of Cascades
I believe this goes under the category of, "let's see if others have this
problem before we say anything".
I will leave out all names because they are not important.
Last week I stopped by a local brewpub and had a glass of their American
Pale Ale. It is normally has a very hoppy Cascades flavor and aroma. This
time the hop flavor and aroma were almost absent. I talked with the
operator and he said that the batch was just brought on tap that morning.
He also thought that it lacked the aroma but he had a bad cold and couldn't
be sure. He had questioned the brewer who insisted he followed the normal
procedure. During the brewing process, they had both noticed the
following:
1) This was the first hops they had used from the new 1999 harvest. (Please
nobody claim this is a Y2K problem.)
2) The alpha content was higher than typical for Cascades.
3) When they opened the bag, the aroma was stronger than typical.
4) The pellets seemed to be "looser" than typical.
5) In the kettle, they seemed to "open up" more and float to the top more.
6) They didn't whirlpool the same.
Well, last night, I stopped by again and the operator told me that he had
called his hop supplier to discuss the problem. The supplier agreed that
this crop had a lot more aroma out of the bag and didn't "pellitize" like
previous crops. These differences were not confined to a single farm but
present in hops from other farms also. The hop supplier was going to do
some more research.
I don't think this information means much right now. I need to see what
develops and if I hear anything else I will post it. I hesitated to post
this because I have so little information right now. If a lot of people
take off from this saying the 1999 Cascades crop is bad, I am sure I won't
hear anything else. However, I decided to post it so we can all watch for
more information on the subject.
Pete Calinski
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:26:50 -0600
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: re: 10 oz Budwiser?
From: "Kelly" <kgrigg@diamonddata.com>
>>> Where do you get Bud in 10 oz cans? I've only seen it in 12
>>> oz.....maybe
>>> the occasional pony sized ones, but, never see a 10 oz can or
>>> bottle. Is
>>> this outside the US?
Kelly,
When I lived in New Orleans, canned beer was mostly sold in 10oz cans.
I seem to remember when they made the change, but I wasn't supposed to
be old enough to know... ;) I think they call that the "vanishing
product". They sell 10 oz beers at 12 oz prices instead of increasing
the the price of the 12 oz beers. I went out of state for college and
when my buddies and I returned for Mardi Gras, they were all amazed.
We have our own beer issues here in Texas, but thankfully, like most
things in Texas, size is not one of them. ;)
Cheers!
Lou Heavner - Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:33:37 -0500
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn@jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Underpitching?
Just bottled my recent two strong beers, a scotch ale and a belgian
tripel. The final gravities were lower than expected especially on the
belgian ale. I had recultured some yeast from a Duvel and used it to make a
Belgian dubbel following the same recipe I used about a year ago. This
dubbel finished a bit higher than last year's batch and the yeast fermented
quicker than last year's cultured Duvel yeast. This year's yeast also
seemed to have a spicier taste. My recent tripel also finished higher than
expected so I went back and checked my notes from the recent Dubbel. This
tripel finished about 1.023 and I was expecting something like 1.012-15 with
all the sugar I added (est. OG 1.084 of which .024 was from honey and
glucose). I pitched about 2L of starter into a 4 gallon batch but my
starters used malta which is probably not the best nutrient source and I
didn't have any yeast nutrient to add to the starter. My starter for the
scotch ale used Nottingham yeast into ~0.6 gallon starter also using malta
and pitched into a 4.5 gallon batch of scotch ale (est OG 1.092 of which
.007 was from a lb. of honey). I expected the scotch ale to finish a bit
lower around 1.021 ish and it finished 1.026 This was only a bit higher
than the previous scotch ale which used all malt (same M&F light extract).
Looks like I should have carmelized the malt more on the scotch ale too, it
had more aroma last time. Next time I think I'll boil the portion of malt
that I"m trying to carmelize for at least two hours if I can. IT might seem
that I underpitched but its hard to say what my results should have been
with that cultured yeast from a bottle of Duvel . Maybe it's not as high an
attenuator as I expected. With the scotch ale using Nottingham yeast, I
guess I should add that last time I used a large starter of Wyeast Scottish
Ale yeast and it finished only slightly higher this time so I'm not too far
off base. I think I tend to see less attenuation in the winter time with
ferments at 64-66F than I do in the summer with 70-75F ferments. For
strong ales, it would seem that you definately will see the affects of
underpitching even with a starter multiplied up 8X. Just my thoughts on
underpitching based on my recent batches that finished higher than expected.
John Penn
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:02:02 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Palexperiment and underpitching
Paul Niebergall wrote in part:
>What is interesting about the Palexperiment is that clearly
>(by just about anybody's account who subscribes to the
>HBD expurt cult) the beers were underpitched. Yet nowhere
>on the web page nor in the hundreds of lines that were
>subsequently written in the HBD concerning the outcome
>of the experiment, is there any reference to "problems"
>occurring from "underpitching". Not one reference to
>off-flavors, bacteria contamination, undercarbonation,
>excess esters, phenols, nothing, nada, zippo, zero.
Huh???? There certainly was reference made to these problems:
"The high degree of contamination we
encountered also suggests a potential
problem with the pitching rates used. In
order to minimize variables, each participant
was given a Wyeast XL pack (Wyeast
Laboratories, Hood River, Oregon) from
the same lot and package date and
instructed to pitch directly from that
package. Despite the manufacturer's claims
that these packages do not require a starter
for a 5-gallon batch, all of the participants
reported lag times of 18 hours or more, and
these longer-than-usual lag times could have
provided bacteria and other contaminants a
window of opportunity to establish a
significant presence. Because pitching large quantities of healthy yeast
minimizes
the lag phase and is one of the best weapons brewers have against
bacterial
contamination, our findings suggest that it would probably be a better
practice
for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs. (See George De
Piro's
article on page 48 for information on making a starter.)"
- from the Palexperiment Results Pt. 1
Yes, according to the "consensus pitch rates" these beers would have been
underpitched but note also that they were using the /Extra Large/ Wyeast
smack packs which would not be /quite/ as bad as simply using a small smack
pack.
As far as contamination goes, the authors found "... most showed clear and
often dramatic evidence of bacterial contamination ..." and this included
Pediococcus, Acetobacter, Lactobacillus, and Bacillus sp.
It was also interesting that they found a broad /range/ of contamination
levels in these beers. One interpretation of these results is that the low
pitch rate left open a window of opportunity for contaminating bacteria to
gain a foothold and that the observed variation in contamination levels in
the final beer reflect variations in the sanitation procedures of the
individual brewers.
That being said, Paul does raise an interesting point, that by and large
these beers apparently did not exhibit major flavor defects. While the
authors say some of the beers had clearly "gone off " they also said that
most tasted like "better than average all-grain homebrews" so it seems
clear that there were no /major/ defects in the majority of these beers. Of
course, for all we know, with higher pitch rates these may have ascended to
a level higher than simply better than average but we don't really know.
I think this is another example of the complexities involved in brewing. The
overriding opinion among "expurts" both here on the HBD as well as
professional brewers is that underpitching /can/ be a bad thing. Note the
qualifier here. The contamination issue is but one possible problem and may
stem from either longer lag times or incomplete fermentation. Many of the
other potential negative flavor outcomes from underpitching have more to do
with the health of the resultant yeast population (which may be compromised
if the pitching rate is too low) during and after the fermentation. However,
as with most things in brewing it is not so one-dimensional. For instance,
the "evils" of a low pitch rate may be significantly ameliorated if the
wort has sufficient oxygen and unsaturated fatty acids to support yeast
growth such that a large and healthy population results.
Paul goes on to say:
>Maybe the expurts are wrong?
>Maybe the expurts should stop spurting forth from
>so-called text books? Maybe we should all take
>a good hard look at some real data.
Paul, while I agree that there are some who are willing to simply "spurt"
information from texts ( I believe the proper derogatory HBD term is
"librarians") I would hope that most of the discussions that occur here are
geared towards ferreting out the "Truth." Text references are one source of
info for this, in addition to the primary research literature (the texts are
mostly syntheses of these) as well as the experience and experimentation of
the countless individuals on the HBD and elsewhere. These are all sources of
data and they should all be considered and given appropriate weight.
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. If you are really interested in the validity of the need for high
pitch rates then I suggest you do some experiments yourself. It would be
easy enough to do - just make a large batch, split it and pitch differing
levels of the same yeast starter into identical small fermentations.
-Alan Meeker
Lazy Eight Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:11:41 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Lab Work
Not that I am trying to be contradictory or anything
like that, but in light of true science and the art of brewing,
I have to comment of some of what Louis wrote
concerning the results of the Palexperiment (please dont take this
as a personal attach, it's just the "scientist" in me speaking out):
>The LMDA tests found HUGE levels of bacterial
>contamination in a majority of the beers. And as
>to whether underpitching could have been the
>reason......
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? What
were the units and how many were actually measured?
Was there any quality assurance or control built into
the laboratory testing program?
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).
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 mean we are talking science here aren't we? Until we
can see the actual results (number please) of the lab tests,
assign a minimum level of quality to the results, and establish
a level of confidence in the data, we really can't begin to
interpret the results, can we?
>The high degree of contamination we encountered also
>suggests s potential problem with the pitching rates used.
SUGGESTS a POTENTIAL problem? How does data
suggest a problem? Either there is a problem or there
isn't. Even if quality lab work was performed and the
results are actually useable (which I seriously doubt),
you could not conclude, based solely on the results of
the experiment, that underpitching was the cause of
the supposed huge contamination levels that
were detected. At best you could maybe assume that under-
was a contributing factor. The experiment was not designed
to assess the cause of the contamination.
>all the participants reported lag times of 18 hours or more, and
>these longer lag times could have provided bacteria and
>other contaminants a window of opportunity to establish a
>significant presence.
This is true. But remember, "could have" is the operative
phrase here. This point is something that is speculated almost
daily on the HBD. The Palexperiment and the results
of the laboratory testing program did nothing confirm or deny
this speculation.
>Because pitching large amounts of
>healthy yeast minimizes the lag phase and is one of the best
>weapons brewers have against bacterial contamination, our
>findings suggest that it would probably be a better practice
>for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs."
No, not really. The speculation that "pitching large amounts of
healthy yeast minimizes the lag phase and is one of the best
weapons brewers have against bacterial contamination" is
undoubtably true (speculation on my part - hey, I am actually
agreeing here). But the second part of the sentence, "our
findings suggest that it would probably be a better practice
for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs." is
not true. Pre-conceived notions, common sense,
and speculation suggests that this might be true, but the
Palexperiment and the results of the laboratory testing
program did nothing confirm or deny this.
fire away
Paul Niebergall
Burns & McDonnell
pnieb@burnsmcd.com
"Illegitimis non carborundum"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:12:46 -0500 (EST)
From: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff McNally)
Subject: re: pitching rates
Hi All,
In HBD #3263 Paul Niebergall posts about pitching rates and says:
>I just thought that I would add a note of reality to the current
>pitching rate debate. Remember the Palexperiment back in 1998?
I sure do, I was one of the 45 (+/- a couple) brewers involved.
You'll notice my name on the web page Paul refers to.
>If I recall correctly, the ingredients list specified that a single
>Wyeast Smak-Pack (1056) be used to innoculate the boiled and cooled
>wort. That's right, NO STARTER!.
Yes, we did'nt use a starter for exactly the reasons Paul listed.
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.
>What is interesting about the Palexperiment is that clearly
>(by just about anybody's account who subscribes to the
>HBD expurt cult) the beers were underpitched.
Yes, this is true.
>Yet nowhere
>on the web page nor in the hundreds of lines that were
>subsequently written in the HBD concerning the outcome
>of the experiment, is there any reference to "problems"
>occurring from "underpitching".
Most of the data provided by the brewers and Loius' lab test results
are available online at:
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue7.1/bonhamtable.html
This table shows that lag times ranged from 13 hours to over 60 hours.
I have'nt calculated the mean, but I'd guesstimate it at around 40 hrs
(which is what my lag time was). I would say that most brewers would be
concerned about lag times this long.
This table also shows the results of Louis' LMDA contamination tests.
You will notice that very few of the beers rated "clear". Also, here is
a quote from Louis regarding the LMDA test results:
"Before I give you the results, a few caveats. First, while I applaud everyone
who got a "clear" rating, don't get too cocky about it. The industry standard
method would be to have filtered 100ml of the beer through a 0.45 micron
membrane, and then grow up whatever bugs were trapped on the membrane. Ergo,
this industry standard method increases the concentration of the microbes
sampled by a factor of more than 100 of what we were sampling. I originally
planned to use this method, but both Paul Farnsworth and Katie Kunz told me I
was nuts to even think about it, as directly inoculating a plate with 0.5-1 ml
of homebrew typically would give so many colonies as to make the plates nearly
unreadable. This turned out to be quite true. So, while having your beer pass
our little test -- especially given the stresses they were put under to get here
- -- is no small feat, don't think for a minute that this proves that you're the
equivalent of Bud/Miller/Coors in terms of sanitation."
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.
>According to the expurts here,
>the 45 batches of beer would have been "severely"
>underpitched thus causing any one of a plethora
>of problems that would render the beer undrinkable.
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?
>Maybe the expurts are wrong?
>Maybe the expurts should stop spurting forth from
>so-called text books? Maybe we should all take
>a good hard look at some real data.
My batch of beer for the Palexperiment was the 42nd batch of homebrew that
I had ever made. At the time, I was routinely stepping up Wyeast 50ml smack
packs from the pack into a 1 qt starter. I was also criticly examining all
of my sanitation procedures because I had a "house flavor" to all of my brews
that I felt was due to contamination. Did this "house flavor" make my brews
undrinkable? No. Did this "house flavor" show up in my Palexperiment brew?
Yes, and to a larger degree than my other batches that used a starter. Did
this amplified "house flavor" in the Palexperiment batch make it undrinkable?
No, I've even won some ribbons with with this very batch.
Louis' LMDA tests showed that my batch of Palexperiment brew had a
"moderate" pediococcus infection. I firmly believe this bug to be the cause
of my "house flavor".
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.
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
==========================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250
Naval Undersea Warfare Center email:
Systems Development Branch mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW:
Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:43:05 -0800
From: J Daoust <thedaousts@ixpres.com>
Subject: a good looking temp controller
Unfortunately for me, I found this site after I purchased my dial
operated Johnson Controls unit
(A350) This unit has a Good price (99.00) and is digital , I don't know
too much more about it beside
what is listed on the site, but it really looks like a good unit.
http://www.williamsbrewing.com/temperature.htm#Controller II
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:39:39 -0600
From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart@dridesign.com>
Subject: Soapy Taste
I have not brewed CAPs but I did encounter soapy flavors on three
consecutive batches this last summer.
These were APAs... base malt was Breiss 2row (infusion mash) and hopped with
Nugget (pellet) and EKG (whole). I thought it was an infection or poorly
rinsed equipment at first but after researching the HBD and other resources
I came up with this thought.
I was still partial mashing at the time and was not whirlpooling the trub.
On these batches I experienced abundant masses of flaky tan material (cold
break?). I let the break settle but with each batch I carried alot of trub
into the fermenter. I was pitching directly with vials of White Labs
California Ale yeast. Each batch fermented at around 75F.
>From my research I concluded that perhaps the break material (protein and
fats... lipids?), combined with the yeast growth and temperature of the
ferment caused the byproduct of a "fatty" or "soapy" flavor... it even had a
soapy aroma. I must also point out that my water is carbon filtered and I
made sure to thourough rinse all equipment with hot, then cold water.
After I moved to all-grain, using a false bottom kettle, and whole hops as a
filter bed, this problem went away.
Coincidence? If someone could support or redirect my theory, in kindergarten
terms, I'd appreciate it.
Tim Burkhart
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:43:42 EST
From: Tombrau@aol.com
Subject: damned 2-5 beer hangovers
Wort Brothers
Occaisonally I wake up 6, or so, hours after a few beers with a pounding
headache and hot and cold sweats. My fear was a tired liver, but another
culprit may be to blaim. I have noticed it is sporadically occuring from a
few select pubs. I suspect dirty beer lines. This hangover is different
because it happens with just a few beers and rears its head after such a long
time, eyes popping open from a sound sleep to instant misery.
Any thoughts?
Tom Moench
" we can do this 2 ways, my way or my way pissed off"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:01:25 -0500
From: gradym@us.ibm.com
Subject: pitching rates in the Great HBD Palexperiment
In HBD #3263, Paul Niebergall points out that in the "Great HBD
Palexperiment", <all> the brewers were instructed to pitch directly from a
Wyeast smack pack (no starter), so <all> the beers were underpitched...yet
he hasn't heard about references to problems that occurred from this
underpitching. So where is the big disaster that happened from all that
beer being underpitched?
A couple of things...1st, the yeast used was one of the 'extra large' smack
packs from Wyeast, so the beer was not as underpitched as one might
imagine. Nevertheless, all brewers reported very long lag times (18
hours+). 2nd, Louis Bonham did run lab tests on the beer (as Paul
mentions), and the results were not very good! More than 3/4ths of the
entries had 'moderate to severe' bacterial infection. You can read all
about it at
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue7.1/bonham.html
Now, in all fairness, Paul is correct that the beers were still judged to
mostly to taste good, etc. This was a very hoppy APA, so that might just
mean that beers with a lot of strong flavor components can withstand a
little infection without much of a detrimental effect, especially if you
drink the beer young. I still think that pitching at least <some> sort of
a starter is simple and effective insurance against:
unwanted high finishing gravity,
competition with bacteria (you want the yeast to win),
batch-to-batch inconsistency
We can argue about how many millions of cells per liter for what OG of wort
in what styles, but I think it is hard to argue against starters and for
underpitching in general. Most of us homebrewers are almost always going
to 'underpitch' (by commercial standards) - we all don't have the time to
grow yeast to huge volumes (except maybe when we pitch on to the cake of a
previous batch). But here's something to think about along these lines -
Have you ever heard an experienced brewer say, "You know, ever since I
started using starters, the quality of the beer I make has really
degraded"? All I ever hear is exactly the opposite, and that includes me
talking!
Matt Grady
Burlington, Vermont
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:14:02 -0600
From: David Sweeney <David@stulife2.tamu.edu>
Subject: Need IPA Recipe
I've just finished my RIMS system. I want to brew an IPA for my first
batch. I'm looking for award-winning IPA recipes as candidates for my
maiden batch. Will need all-grain (of course) and 5-7 gal. Single-step
infusion,if appropriate for your ingredients, is a plus (Hey, why tempt fate
with the first batch, right?). Appropriate-to-style ingredients (i.e.
English 2-row base, EKG, etc) will be given preferential consideration.
Here's your chance! Does anyone out there have an IPA recipe that is
"to-die-for"? I'll post my selection and critique with credit to the
originator, of course.
David Sweeney
Texas A&M University
david@stulife2.tamu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:04:27 -0500
From: Paul Haaf <haafbrau1@juno.com>
Subject: Pet Panties/ Beer related
Before anyone complains that the pet panties was not beer related, let me
suggest that this is Pat & Karl's new line of hop bags, or maybe a
hot/cold break sifter. 8^)
RDWHAHB. Cheers
Paul
"Give me ambiquity, or give me something else."
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:20:02 -0800
From: "Troy Hager" <thager@hcsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Temperature Controlled Fermentation/Lagering Chamber
About a month ago I inquired about building a temperature controlled
lagering/fermenting chambers. I did get a few responses but mostly people
who responded wanting to hear more about how to do this. I have just
finished mine and it works great so decided to post my project.
I had an old refridgerator that had a bottom drawer-type freezer section
with the fridge on top. Since we were going to get rid of it, I decide to
tear it apart and try to use the guts to make my own cooling chamber (this
was from an idea that I got from an HBDer whose name escapes me).
I worked very carefully for a long time cutting away the metal and removing
the fiberglass insulation to reveal the cooling tubing and elements. I
actually had to tie the tubing to my rafters to hold it upright - it is very
delicate and one bad move might have bent and put a hole in it. I cut
everything off but the bottom metal that encased the fan, compressor and the
coils. I constantly tested it to see if it was still running. I cut the
thermostat wires so now it runs all the time and I will control it with my
Ranco unit from the outside.
I then started in the corner of my garage and using foam and fiberglass
insulation to make a box that would fit my fermentor. I used quite a bit of
insulation (one side has a combination of foam/glass measuring over a foot
thick!) I put a level plywood bottom on it and made a door out of two pieces
of 1.5" foam.
Last night I gave it a test run. I set my temp controller to 32F and in
about 15 minutes it reached the temperature! It seems to work great. One
thing I will do is put a double paned 3/4" plexi window in the door so that
I can check the airlock without opening up the door and letting in heat.
Any questions on more info I would be happy to answer in private email.
Troy
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3264, 03/03/00
*************************************
-------
