Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4688
HOMEBREW Digest #4688 Sun 02 January 2005
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Beer, Beer, and More Beer
Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Wyeast Dutch Castle (Chet Nunan)
Dry Hopping w/Pellets (Bob)
Sri Lanka brewery ("Peter A. Ensminger")
Malty light beer ("Anna R. Dunster")
Status report on viability/methylene/plating confusion ("Fredrik")
link of the week - wikipedia (Bob Devine)
attenuation and Clinitest ("Dave Burley")
Wy3822 ("Dave Burley")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 07:09:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Chet Nunan <katjulchet at yahoo.com>
Subject: Wyeast Dutch Castle
In reply to Chris Hart's post re: Dutch Castle yeast -
I've used this several times, and I'd target a Saison.
The extra tartness and dry finish are well suited to
this style, although it'd work in most Belgian styles.
It would also make a nice base yeast for the
lambic/gueze styles.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:30:13 -0500
From: Bob <Bob at homebrew.com>
Subject: Dry Hopping w/Pellets
Tony asks about dry-hopping with pellets...
Either pellets/plugs/whole hops may be used for dry hopping. Pellets
afford the greatest hop oil potential per ounce since the hop has been
significantly abraded in the pellet formation process, exposing the
oils. But with that advantage, pellets also bring along the green pond
scum effect as they disperse.
I recommend a weighted hop bag for dry-hopping. I usually boil the hop
bag for a few minutes to sanitize it; add a marble along with the hop
pellets, to prevent the hop bag from floating.
When it's time to keg or bottle, leave the hop bag in the fermentor
until you've transferred off the beer - else you may stir up sediment,
or allow some hop slime into the batch.
For your present predicament - don't worry (where have I heard that) -
most of the hop particles will sediment - what remains floating can be
left behind in the fermentor, when you decant to your bottling bucket.
Residual Hop particles in suspension will settle out in your bottles.
Just pour carefully as you would to leave the yeast sediment behind and
enjoy.
- --
Bob (somewhere in southern Carolina)
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Yesterdays' Technology Today
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:23:39 -0500
From: "Peter A. Ensminger" <ensmingr at twcny.rr.com>
Subject: Sri Lanka brewery
The Lion Brewery of Colombo, Sri Lanka, normally produces 160,000 bottle
of beer per day. On Monday (Dec 27), it changed to bottling of potable
water for the tsunami victims.
See the full story:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/beer.water.ap/index.html
Sincerely,
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:19:18 -0800
From: "Anna R. Dunster" <azzacanth at livejournal.com>
Subject: Malty light beer
is it possible? Or if I want a decent maltiness, do I need to make a
dark ale?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:03:03 +0100
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com>
Subject: Status report on viability/methylene/plating confusion
Some time ago I posted about what I found to be amazingly high
viabilities number in a 19 months old wyeast smackpack as per
the methylene staining method.
I have not been checking viability for very long and it was the
first time I actually checked viability in a smack pack.
Even though it is clear that the viability was expected to be
alot higher than my previous fridge slurry test, 86% viability
was just more than what I could believe without further
evidence.
All this made me doubt on the reliability of the methylene blue
method.
I have during the holidays made several platings of the same
yeast, and also correlated with methylene blue staining. I have
yet to repeat these test on pack in the future to make sure I
get the same results, but with this in mind, fwiw, these are the results
of my so far limited testing...
1) Viability as per the MBS(methylene blue staining) dropped
from 86% to 46% in 46 days.
- This viability drop rate is very much similar to the fridge slurry
test. Maybe suggesting, that once the package is broken the
viability starts to drop similar to a fridge slurry? I have no
intermediate datapoints. I just know that viability was 86% at 0d,
and 46% at 46d.
2) At 46d, I tried severals platings, and the cfu / plated cells
gave me 15%, as compared with 46% from MBS.
- ~50% of the deviation can probably be explained from the fact
that cells stick togehter. Microscopic examination indicates the
that cell count / potential cfu as referenced to chunks of 2 or 3
or rarely more cells were around 1.8 in my sample. Also these
were dorman cells. Now I have to little data to draw any solid
conclusions but if I'd go ahead an do so anyway, it would indicate
at this viability that apart from that cells stick together, only
around 58% of the non-stained cells generate colonies.
I have searched the net but not found much details on this before.
There must be solid documentation on these methods, maybe
I just haven't foudn it? I have too little data of my own to conclude,
but it's all I've got. I will try to repeat the same experiments in the
future, and try to correlate staining and plating. Plating is very easy,
but it takes 2 days to get the colonies + since I've seen from
microscopic examination that cells tend to stick together I would
expect that at least in some cases the plating would underestimate
the viability of a magnitue that is comparable to the overestimation
as per the MBS method. If the there is a repeatable pattern in the
deviation this could be accounted for by correction terms. Hopefully
future test will reveal this.
So, the summary guesses *so far* is...
.that I now think that the viability count in the smackpack
probably was somewhere 50-86% rather than 86%, and
that it now is around 26%. Still higher than I though, but at least
a little bit more "sensible".
This raises the question wether my fridge slurry test, also contains
overestimates. If the ratio of overestimation could be found to be
predictable it would allow a useful correction to the methods. The
simplest possible assumption would be that the error drops from
0% at 100% viability to some 50% around 25% viability. I will
check this hypothesis in a future test. Too bad I didn't have a
plating curve to compare along with the fridge test experiment.
For now I'll continue to rely on MBS by keep in mind the possibility
that it may be an overestimation. The goal is to find correction terms
or at least worst case deviations to apply to the methylene blue counts
at low viabilities. But it may be that such a correction is too complicated.
The last mystery:
I still see two distinct morhpologies in the sample, both spherical and
rod shaped of similar size. This is still weird. Could kolesh be an mixed
strain? or could one strain exhibit a diverse morphology?? The round
shaped are the most common though, but there are enough rod shapes
one for me to wonder how come.
/Fredrik
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:05:24 -0700
From: Bob Devine <bob.devine at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: link of the week - wikipedia
One of the great projects on the web is wikipedia,
a comprehensive encyclopedia that is created and
extended by whoever wishes to help.
In that spirit, here are the current entries for
beer and homebrewing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/beer
If anyone wants to improve the entries with more
information or more sub-topics, here's your chance.
Bob Devine
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:34:48 -0500
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: attenuation and Clinitest
Brewsters:
Fred Johnson says in the last HBD:
(I don't want to get into the Clinitest thing again. I was never
convinced that a beer with a lot of unfermentables will give the same
results by Clinitest as a beer without a lot of unfermentables when
fermentation is complete.)
and in a private conversation with me, gives some specifics as to why he holds
this opinion:
> Yes, I have Clinitest and use it....
> but ... a finished beer with lots of
> unfermentables can read >1/4% "glucose". For example, I get higher
> readings with Clinitest on
> really big beers that are well-attenuated and higher readings on beers
> that are known to have lots of nonfermentables such as beers with high
> amounts of Munich malt.
>These higher values simply come from the high
> concentration of unfermentables that are positive on Clinitest.
I replied:
All sounds normal and I have seen similar results, but I do disagree with your
conclusion basically because I can get a 0% glucose response with Clinitest
under proper conditions. This indicates Clinitest is not responding to
unfermentables. Let me see if I can explain this apparent contradiction.
I'm guessing those really big beers were barleywine and you used an ale yeast
and the Munich malt beers you used a lager yeast. This may explain to some
extent your results. If lager yeast was used, when did you measure the
Clinitest? At the very "end" of a fermentation ( i.e the cessation of
bubbling) with lager yeast you could also get about 1/4% glucose by
Clinitest, but under lagering conditions you will see the Clinitest response
go to 0%. Ale yeast will not show this response. These positive responses you
are getting aren't really "reducing" (that is to which Clinitest is
responding) unfermentables detected by Clinitest, just "reducing fermentables"
unfermented by the yeast or conditions you are using. And that is one whole
point of using Clinitest as an indicator of true attenuation and my comments
thereon.
Apparent attenutation determined by final SG confuses the picture since it
measures BOTH the unfermentable carbohydrates ( and other stuff) from the
mashing conditions AND from the unfermented ( but fermentable) carbohydrates
that are a result of the fermentation conditions including the yeast ( strain,
pitching rate, temperature, etc). Using apparent attenuation as a method of
evaluating a yeast or mash conditions is therefore confused by the multiple
factors involved, including alcohol content.
When you measure attentuation at 0% "glucose" this is a true measurement of
the attentuation produced by your mashing and fermentation conditions. If you
measure "glucose" content with Clinitest and your SG measurements for
"Atttenuation" you can correct attenuation to this 0% condition
mathematically.
If you use a real lager yeast ( S. uvarum or whatever its name is this week)
after lagering and compare it with an ale yeast you will find that Clinitest
will give you a 0% or nearly 0% ( betweeen 0 and 1/4%) reading on the 5 drop
test. Using more drops of beer will increase the sensitivity of the test and
in about 6 weeks of lagering will give 0 or near zero even with a 10 drop of
beer test.
In my experience, ale yeast under proper conditions for an ale yeast will give
you about 1/4% glucose when "fully fermented" out in a few weeks. These
reducing sugars which give a Clinitest response are the trisaccharides which a
true lager yeast can ferment and an ale yeast can't. Thus, Clinitest routinely
gives about 1/4% "glucose" with a yeast with normal alcohol concentration
ales.
I'd have to see some examples, including your mashing conditions, but with
really big beers, you will have, naturally, a higher concentration of
tri-saccharides, since you started with more malt. If you used an ale yeast
for these beers you would expect to get a positive Clinitest reading ( maybe
even 1/2% for barleywines) and it is real. If you chose a true lager yeast
you would expect this to eventually go to zero or very near zero with proper
lagering.
Depending on your pitching conditions, you might expect lower enzyme activity
due to the high alcohol and not finish out completely for some yeasts. The
high sugar content of your mash for these big beers could also affect the
sugar profile of your wort, especially with a short saccharification step.
True old fashioned Munich malt has a lower enzyme content of the amylases,
than normal pale lager ( esp US 6-row ) malt, as I am sure you know and you
could expect some higher concentrations of tri-saccharides with pure Munich
mashes which will give a positive Clinitest. However , with proper lagering
with real lager yeast, you can reduce tri-saccharide concentration and you can
follow the progress of lagering with Clinitest.
The rate will be of a declining exponential one. Using more drops of beer will
allow you to follow these low values. You just have to divide the % glucose
results by the ratio of the number of drops you use divided by 5. So if you
use 10 drops and you get 1/4 % on the 5 drop chart, you would actually
have1/8%.
The fact that you can get to 0% reading indicates that Clinitest does not
respond to anything that is unfermentable.
Keep on Brewin',
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:28:29 -0500
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Wy3822
Brewsters:
What follows is my trail of discovery:
Chris Hart wonders about where to start with a seasonal ( Sept to Dec) yeast
produced by Wyeast and asks for suggestions and a recipe.
According to Wyeast:
3822 Dutch Castle Yeast. Spicy, phenolic and tart in the nose. Very tart and
dry on the palate. Phenols and esters well balanced, with a very dry and
complex finish. High acid producer. Flocculation - medium; apparent
attenuation 74-79 percent (65-80 deg F, 18-27 deg C)
Check out the Wyeast descriptions at
http://www.wyeastlab.com/beprlist.htm
And while you are there check out the mixed strains ala my discussions with
Fred Johnson.
As far as a recipe goes, I'd try it in a wheat beer using a Berliner Weiss
formula and maybe as a Belgian Ale to begin with.
Think in terms of Munich malt and lots of dark ( 60 L) Caramel ( crystal)
malt and use a warm
fermentation like for the Belgian Strong Dark Ales, Chimay and the like .
>From the name alone, I'd use lager/pale malt using a high mash temperature but
the other characteristics, esp the complex finish with phenols and esters
screams Belgian. The acids and phenols make me want to try it in
Berlinerweiss.
Hmmmm, on thinking a little more about this, the fact that this is distributed
from September to December may give a clue. Samiclaus
Take a look at the Maltose Falcons' version of Samiclaus ( although they
don't suggest Wy3822) as a fer example, this recipe fits my general feeling
above:
http://www.maltosefalcons.com/recipes/19991201.html
I tried to copy this here but the format didn't agree with the HBD format. So
you will have to check it out.
No idea why it is called "<Dutch> Castle". Anyone?
Then I tried to look up "Dutch Castle" and guess what I found:
Last year about this time such was the subject on HBD:
- -------------------------
From: Nick Dempsey <npdempse at midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Wyeast Dutch Castle Yeast
>
> I'm going to try the seasonal Wyeast 3822 Dutch Castle
> yeast and am trying to figure out an appropriate
> recipe. Evidently this yeast was used for a beer
> called Castille, and is a Belgian style with a higher
> lactic acid production for tartness. I am unfamiliar
> with Castille. Does anyone have any info on this? Or
> tried this yeast? Any feedback is
> appreciated...Thanks!
>
WRT the original beer--might you be referring to Kasteel? I've had their
Donker, and quite enjoyed it. My and others' impressions at
http://www.ratebeer.com/Ratings/Beer/ShowBeer.asp?BeerID=5205
- ------------------------
And DRB did a little more investigation with these clues
Check out: http://www.kentw.uklinux.net/belgium_strength.htm
beer tastings
Name: Kasteel Triple
Strength: 11 percent
Rating: Average
Description:This white beer competes well with Germen Weissbeer. If you
like Weissbeer, then try this, otherwise stay away from it. The taste is dull
with an bitter aftertaste.
Name: Kasteel Donker
Strength: 11 percent
Rating: Very Good
Description:A great dark brown sweet beer with a bitter
aftertaste, which makes the experience complete. I need to drink some more to
verify this, I think...
- -------------------------------
I'll bet it is the same yeast and I'm two for two.
Now why not Belgian instead of Dutch castle? We'll leave
that question for the reader. {*^)
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4688, 01/02/05
*************************************
-------
