Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3663
HOMEBREW Digest #3663 Tue 19 June 2001
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
hydrogen peroxide and London Country brewer (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema@akzonobel.com>
Questions about P. Calinski's Salt Correction Factors ("Tom & Dee McConnell")
RE: Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide ("Dr. Pivo")
re: Geometry again ("Stephen Alexander")
Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
My Strawberry Wheat ("Jeff Beinhaur")
My Strawberry Wheat ("Jeff Beinhaur")
*
* 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA
* June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more
* information. Wear an HBD ID Badge to wear to the gig!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*
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.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:51:11 +0200
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema@akzonobel.com>
Subject: hydrogen peroxide and London Country brewer
Hi,
About hydrogen peroxide. I asked Wyeast and received the following answer:
From: (Wyeast Labs ) >David Logsdon) Subject: Re: Aeration
Hi Hans, That is a good question. We decided to experiment on that concept
since we have had other questions
>regarding the possibility of doing so. The results were as anticipated. The
addition of approx. 1% H2O2 to a yeast starter provided a release of O2
which was readily evident. However at the >80% of the cells. Performance by
the remaining live cells was sluggish and unatenuative. It also produced a
odor/flavor which was undesirable. Wyeast Laboratories
At 09:34 PM 11/28/1999 +0100, you wrote: >Hello, >Question: is it possible
to add hydrogenperoxide to a yeaststarter to provide oxygen?>
=========
I read in HBDigest about the possibility to download this book.
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/london/ Downloading failed and printing
was a problem. Now a need just page 132 (was a blank page).
Can anyone send me this page?
Greetings from Holland (Europe), Hans Aikema <http://www.hopbier.myweb.nl/>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:09:48 -0600
From: "Tom & Dee McConnell" <tdmc@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Questions about P. Calinski's Salt Correction Factors
Reference Pete Calinski's Correction Factors for
Water Treatment post
First I make no profession of knowing much about
chemystery. With that said, I'll ask what seems
to me to be an obvious question.
It would seem to me that humidity would play a
big factor in the weight of the water. FL has
humidity in the 9x% range, but where I live the
humidity is in the 1x% range. I hope there is a
chemical reason that ambient humidity does not
make a difference - life would be so much
simpler. But still I would like to know as I
use RO water and dose things up.
I looked at you spreadsheet and notice that you
have x moles of water for a given salt. How did
you come up with this? Sounds like FM (freakin'
magic) to me.
Now, before anyone starts in with college level
chemystery - realize that my high school
chemystery teacher showed us how to bend glass
tubes (yup!!! made my very own eye dropper), use
a scale (I weighed the salt before it sat out
and after it set out, but had no idea what it
all meant - did not have to to pass, just weigh
the salt), and memorized (for test purposes
only) the periodic table. So I need the
chemystery explained in some basic english. Not
kindergarten style - I do pretty good with math
& physics, but that chemystery ..........
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is
bacteria. - German Proverb
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:04:04 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: RE: Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide
Brian Lundeen has some questions about the theoretical use of hydrogen
peroxide as an oxygenating agent.
He wonders:
> nor would I want to use the weak solutions we use for treating our
> boo-boos.
>
It might turn out to be exactly what you'd want. I use 35 percent H2O2
as the base for my sterilizing solution, and I just did a little mental
calculation about how much I'd need to oxygenate a batch on hand, and it
equipment. Using "boo-boo" strength, on the other hand (3 percent) would
push you into just over 3 cc's which is a volume I think I could squirt.
Anyone want to check my numbers, I thought like this.
1 ppm (in water) would be .001 ml per litre of pure H2O2. 35 percent is
roughly one third so that would be .003 ml.. "Dropping" a batch, "might"
take you to about 3.3 ppm O2, so that would be equiv. to .01 ml 35
percent per litre. I happen to have some batches in the cellar just
pitched where there is one at about 30 l, one about 45 and one at 90 l
of the exact same wort. If I took the smallest then it would need about
0.3 ml.
If I had boo-boo strength I could be using more like 3.3 ml, which is
"syringable"
Now I WAS planning on doing some little "spurments" with temp
variation during primary with those barrels down there.
The idea of using H2O2 as an oxygenating method runs so ENTIRELY
contrary to my beliefs, and purely by instinct is something that I would
warn people from EVER trying. and hopefully not even THINKING
about........ that it just might work.
I have mentioned earlier that since recieving an article from AJ
DeLange, I have become slightly intrigued with "reoxygenating" a bit
into the primary, and feel I'm pretty familiar now with what kind of
things happen when you do it at different times.
I think I'll try a little H2O2 "squirt" when white krauzen is just
turning up.
After all, HBD history has shown us that this could well be an item of
discussion for several years, if as per usual, everyone chatters, and
nobody does anything.
If anyone wants to check my reasoning on the volumes I'm talking about
so that I'm not GROSSLY in error in my numbers, I'd be happy to hear
from you.
What I will have to do is dilute my 35 percent stuff 1 to 10, so that I
have enough volume to "shoot", and I've already got a vision of there
coming a large cloud of bubbles where I shoot it in.... in other words,
the greatest ammount of O2 generated will probably be going straight
into the air.
What I'd probably need was some way of slow introduction at the "bottom"
of the fermenter... but sooner or later that stuff will make it to the
surface and out into the air....... but I suppose the rate at which that
happens will probably depend on temperature gradients, convection,
column height.... in fact a whole bunch of stuff thet are directlly
drawn from the size and shape of the fermenter...... what some people
call "geome-...."
WHOOPS!.........
ALMOST SLIPPED UP THERE!!
I'd totally forgotten that there are still small enclaves upon the
planet ----small tucked away hamlets of zealots ---- where people do
not believe that this is a valid force.... but are willing to badger,
insult, and perhaps even SLAY anyone who suggests that it may be.
Now we don't want THEM getting riled up do we.
We could get a repeat of the "Great Botulism Massacres" of '97.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:29:27 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: Geometry again
Dave Harsh writes ...
>I think the point is that there are three statements here, two say yeast
>must have oxygen, one says they can mostly do without it. Seems like a
>contradiction.
Where's the contradiction ? Yeast can survive ~indefinitely given ~10-40ppm
of O2 at normal pitching rates every ~4 generations or so. This is orders
of magnitude less than any respiring organisms (and yeast can respire) and
about as little as possible except for true anaerobes . It seems you're
having difficult understanding basics. Reading Tracy Aquilla's BT article
may improve your understanding.
How about this analogy Dave - humans require zinc, but in significant amount
(~ 100 mg per day) it's toxic. Zinc is (I suspect) and absolute requirement
for human growth, but anyone who claims humans "lust for zinc" and suggest
that more zinc implies greater human growth is ignorant. It's no
contradiction that humans require zinc but require d*mn little. It's also
no contradiction that yeast require O2 but require little - (including in
conventional brewing context).
... back to shear forces ..
>If
>our fermentation rates are similar, which they should be, the CO2
>evolved in the 3:1 system has less cross sectional area through which to
>move! It won't decide to stay there, it will move at the same total
>rate through the decreased c/s area,
This is the part where I find holes in your argument. Perhaps you can fill
in some detail Dave.
1/ There *is* net CO2 convection from the nucleation site upward *but* CO2
has viscosity (and shear forces) 5 orders of magnitude less than wort. CO2
shear can't be taken seriously as a cause.
2/ The wort has *NO* net flow due to CO2 nucleation. As a CO2 bubble forms
there is a net upwelling of the volume and forces very similar to the
whirlpool effect (another shear based brewing phenomena), *but* as the CO2
bubble rises and releases at the surface these forces are almost identically
reversed yielding no net convection of the wort..
I am willing to entertain your suggestion as *possible but unlikely* that
shear forces could cause somewhat poorer fermentation - but I cannot see
that CO2 nucleation causes any net CO2 convection which would in turn cause
shear at the fermenter/wort interface. I openly admit I don't understand
the shear at a CO2 bubble/wort interface but any reasonable reader must
admit that this force is *NOT* a function of H:W but only fementer 'H'eight.
though which the bubble rises.
>convection,
[...]
>and no, it would not be determinable.
But wort/fermenter shear is directly relate to convection and you admit you
cannot determine convection. How do you support the assumption of equal
conventions ?
>So are you saying that yeast are either "flocculent" or "non-flocculent"
> - there's no in-between?
No - I never said that - but it marginalizes your position as shear only
increases flocculation for yeast which are flocculent to some degree.
>I would suspect that
>those pesky little CO2 bubbles, which are less dense than wort, are
>rising due to buoyancy and dragging the fluid along with it.
Perhaps so - but in any even height vessel the effect is uniform wrt surface
area and so there is no net convection of the wort.
>It's time to either put-up or shut-up, Steve. For the third time, I am
>asking you to itemize your "more physically plausible explanations" for
>the phenomenon that has been observed by multiple brewers, both on the
>commercial and homebrewing scale.
Well here it is Dave - for the 5th time - please read it this time for a
change.
*** I do NOT NOT NOT believe there is any such effect of H:W independently
causing poor fermentation performance. ***, despite your extremely limited
and poorly controlled observations.
My statement (you quoted) described my belief that whatever was observed in
terms of differential performance by DeClerck , Fix, your friend, etc
cannot be correctly attributed to H:W, but rather to some other factor that
was not properly controlled. Without examining the experiment,
demonstrating that it is reproducible and adding additional controls - it is
pointless to speculate which uncontrolled factor was the actual cause.
Temp, CO2, O2, are just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of well
known yeast performance factors that were certainly not controlled. I am
NOT NOT NOT going to join you in guessing wildly and without basis about to
which one might have caused the effects observed.
I seriously doubt DeClerck ever produced such a wide-ranging conclusion from
limited experiments as "H:W independently is a fermentation performance
factor". More likely readers overgeneralized his specific results.
- --
Let's stick to your argument Dave. You have no evidence that increased
shear causes poorer fermentation performance and there is a mountain of
evidence that stirred and shaken samples from forced fermentation tests
experience greater shear and better fermentation (in terms of the time
param). You haven't shown any forces to create the added convection and
shear such that it can be directly related to H:W (rather than height
alone). I think you point is dead in the water.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:14:01 -0400
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide
Brian Lundeen wrote:
>This ties into question 4 (I'm just having too much fun with this now to
>stop), how much heat will this process generate? There's no time saving
>advantage if you have to spend additional time cooling the wort to
>compensate for the heat introduced with the oxygen.
Don't use hydrogen peroxide. I've got something better - liquid oxygen.
Let's shove some of THAT into our beer! It also has the added benefit of
cooling the wort while it oxygenates it. But be careful! Last week I
spilled a little on my pinky, it froze right up, cracked off and fell into
my carboy! So while I'm waiting to drink my Stinky Pinky Light Lager, does
anyone know if rotting body parts will have an effect on fermentation rate
and diacetyl production?. You can buy liquid oxygen at Cape Kennedy Space
Center or anywhere liquid fuel-propelled rockets are launched...
Oh, I shouldn't forget, it goes well with dry ice carbonation of a beer
brewed with a solar-powered RIMS. I give up... Some questions just weren't
meant to be answered.
>On a totally separate topic, can someone please let me know when the
>fermenter geometry debate pushes the Clinitest debate out of first place on
>the Official HBD Top 10 Contentious Topics list? I want to make sure I
>salute the occasion in an appropriate manner. ;-)
AMEN! Let's see... unsubscribe cap_exp... I'll do it on my own & keep it
to myself. At this point I really don't care to provide ammunition to the
barrage of I-told-you-so's, which the opposition will respond to in full
force with lists of inane design flaws.
Carpe cerevisiae!
Glen A. Pannicke
glen@pannicke.net http://www.pannicke.net
75CE 0DED 59E1 55AB 830F 214D 17D7 192D 8384 00DD
"I have made this letter longer than usual,
because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:41:05 -0400
From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur@email.msn.com>
Subject: My Strawberry Wheat
Thanks to all who made suggestions on my recipe. Well I started the brew
yesterday and the grain bill for the five gallon batch was:
9 Lbs. Wheat
2 1/2 lbs. two row pale
1 lb. CaraPils
One ounce of Willamette was added for a 60 minute boil.
The yeast was a fresh slurry from a hometown micro (1056 like).
I will be washing, cutting, freezing, thawing and then crushing five lbs. of
strawberrys. A suggestion was made to add a crushed camden tablet to the
berries and allow to soak for twenty four hours before adding the beer. So
my plan is to do this crushing and soaking in a plastic 5 gallon fermentor
and then racking the beer right on top of the berries. I was told to expect
active fermentation to really take off again from the sugars in the berries.
A suggestion was made to add some Potassium Sulfate to inhibit fermentation.
Not sure if I'll do that or not but will have some handy just in case.
Now to brew day specifics. I milled the grain with a Corona mill. Now I have
a adjustable two row mill that I share with a brewing buddy but due to lack
of planning and forgetfullness I didn't have posession of this. Hence the
use of the Corona that our local micro let me borrow (no they don't use it
but did have it laying around). I must say that I have a lot of respect for
those of you still using one of these. Do yourself a favor and get a roller
mill. Having never milled wheat and having never used a Corona I don't know
if I got it right or not. The reason I say this is that my OG was at 1.044
which according to ProMash was only a 47% efficiency. I didn't use any rice
hulls as was suggested and had no problems with the sparge.
So.... could it be that I didn't crush the wheat enough? Is 1.044 going to
be to low for this beer?
It is fermenting away quite strong and would expect with this low starting
gravity and the yeast used that most of the fermentation will be complete in
two to three days. I guess I better start getting the berries ready.
Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA
Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:43:24 -0400
From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur@email.msn.com>
Subject: My Strawberry Wheat
I forgot to mention. The mash was a single infusion at 154 degrees. Although
a number of folks suggested a protein rest I find it hard to hit multiple
temp ranges using a Gott coller as a mash tun.
Upon doing some further reading I'm really beginning to think that the wheat
wasn't crushed enough. Any thoughts?
Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA
Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3663, 06/19/01
*************************************
-------
