HOMEBREW Digest #1207 Thu 19 August 1993

Digest #1206 Digest #1208

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  yeast FAQ comments/Zymurgy Bashing/more yeast comments (korz)
  Your favorite supplier? (CCAMDEN)
  Boiling (Davin Slade)
  my own hops (Matthias Wrase)
  C. cerevisiae taxonomy? (Tom.Weicht)
  Taxonomy Debate (Tom.Weicht)
  re:WORT AERATION  (R.) Cavasin" <cav at bnr.ca>
  strike temperatures (Paul Conti)
  re: Welding Stainless (GANDE)
  Yeast Culture Kit Company ("Anton Verhulst")
  Bar Harbor Ale (Kristof_Mueller)
  Yeast (Jack Schmidling)
  Heat Capacity of Malt / Infusion Calculations (Kelly Jones)
  Cold plates and wort chilling (inline)
  re: Wort Aeration ("William A Kitch")
  Irish Ale Yeast (Keith A. MacNeal HLO1-1/T09 DTN 225-6171  18-Aug-1993 1252)
  Details re. Hard, high pH water treatment for new masher (Bill Flowers)
  Beer in Portland, Maine & Spokane, WA (Jeff Mizener)
  Indianapolis (Robert Pulliam)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:38 CDT From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: yeast FAQ comments/Zymurgy Bashing/more yeast comments Patrick writes: > a. Place the starter jars in a location where 68F (18C can be held). Aerate > twice daily by vigorously shaking jars. 1L Erlenmeyer flasks are excellent > for this purpose because they permit vigorous swirling without getting the > wort up by the neck and opening. Yes, but I've read that although fermentation may be done at lower temps, 80F is a better temperature for starters. Remember, you're trying to increase your yeast bulk here, not make beer. Also, 1L Erlenmeyer flasks are extremely expensive from most places, unless you buy in bulk. If you're interested in a source for inexpensive 250ml, 500ml and 1L Pyrex Erlenmeyers in single-quanitities, email me. Another interesting point is that if you use a glass airlock, you can put that in your pressure cooker or autoclave (this is definately NOT recommended with a polystyrene airlock!). Jack Schmidling gave me a great tip that I use when I make starters on the stovetop: put an empty glass airlock on the flask and let the boiling wort's steam sanitize and FILL the airlock too! Again, don't try this with a plastic airlock (YUCK!). > d. It is also desirable to reduce the temperature to a point closer > to the temperature that will be used in production if that is > lower than 18 C. For example, with lagers fermented at 10 C, this > is usually taken to be 14-15 C. Yes and this should be done slowly. You should *slowly* lower the temperature of the starter to the temperature of the wort into which you will be pitching. A few degrees difference is okay, 10 degrees may increase your lag time, 20+ degrees may shock your yeast so they are never quite the same. > a. At this time you should have a jar with about 500ml (a little more than 2 > cups) of yeast for a 5gal ale batch. I would suggest pitching before the > krausen (foam) totally dies down so that the yeast are still in rapid growth > phase. The total volume will vary with batch size, yeast type, and your > personal experience/whim. Remember to keep yeast notes along with your beer > notes so that you can learn from experience! This goes against what I've found to be true. Pitching *just after* the kraeusen dies down is just about ideal. Quoting Mike Sharp: MS> what I really wanted to address was the 'you should pitch at high MS> kraeusen' myth. Research has showed that you actually want to MS> pitch just after the cells have entered their stationary phase. MS> (thats the stage after high kraeusen when the yeast begings to MS> flocculate). The reason for this relates to the glycogen level MS> (think of it as the cell's gas tank) in the cell. During high MS> kraeusen the cells are rather depleated of glycogen and are less MS> able to multiply. This results in slow starts, a possible MS> increase in sulfur dioxide levels, and a host of other problems. MS> MS> The reference I have at hand for all of this is: MS> Impact of Yeast-Handling Procedures on Beer Flavor Development MS> During Fermentation by Pickerell, Hwang, and Axcell MS> American Society of BBrewing Chemists Journal, MS> 49:2, 1991 > c. It is not advised that you pitch the old wort and yeast into the fermenter > because the media has been exposed to air and oxidized, etc, etc. Therefore, > pour off or siphon off the old media, leaving the yeast on the bottom of the > flask. Pour this slurry into the primary or resuspend this slurry in > sterile water and add immediately to the wort. A short exposure to water > will not harm the yeast, although they should not be exposed to it for long > periods or they will lyse. I don't think the spent starter liquid should be oxidized or was exposed to air. If you've had activity in the starter, the air in the flask has been displaced by CO2 created by the yeast. It's not a big deal if you pour it off or pitch it. The main reason for pouring it off is if you want to make more yeast but you don't have room in your flask. You can then pour off the liquid and add fresh, sterile wort. >(v) Autoclave the tubes at 15 psi for 5 mins. Actually, 15-20 minutes is recommended. >(vi) Tighten the caps on the tubes, and place them at a > 30 degree angle. Allow them to solidify at room temperature. > Solidification should become apparent within a few hours. > Tubes which are not solid after 24 hrs. should be discarded. You should let the tubes cool quite a bit in the autoclave/pressure cooker before you tighten the caps. If you tighten them when they are too hot, they will implode. I let everything cool overnight in the pressure cooker. >Note: Petri dishes can not be autoclaved, and so alternate procedures are >needed for them. A common practice is to autoclave the malt/ agar solution in No, no, no. You mean disposable, polystyrene petri dishes cannot be autoclaved. Polypropylene and glass petri dishes can be autoclaved. I, personally, don't like to use disposable anything, so I've found a source for glass petri dishes. Email me for a single-quanitity source. Gosh, I hope I don't sound too negative about Patrick's posts -- they were a lot of work and, he has said that they are collected from various sources. These sources are not always 100% on target and therefore some minor errors are inevitable. Again I must tip my (HopUnion) hat to Patrick for a well-done piece of work. ***************************** Subject: re:Zymurgy bashing I'm with Jim Busch on this topic -- Zymurgy and the AHA in general have been making efforts to improve and I, for one, am glad to see that they are soliciting more input from us. ***************************** More from Patrick: > Yeast are unicellular fungi. All brewing yeast belong to the genus > Saccharomyces. Ahem, since I occasionally brew Pure-culture Lambieks, I take great exception with this statement. There are a great many different genus of yeast that play a role in Lambieks, for example, Brettanomyces. See J.X. Guinard's book Lambic for a detailed discussion of all the different microbiota that work in concert to make this most complex of beers. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 22:17:10 -0400 (EDT) From: CCAMDEN at delphi.com Subject: Your favorite supplier? OK, my first batch is busy bubbling away. (Is it normal to go in and just look at it every so often?) And I am already looking forward to the next time. My local homebrew store is really just a health food store with a corner devoted to brewing and wine making. However, not only is their stock limited, but I question how old some of the stuff is. So I have been calling a few mail order suppliers and requesting catalogs. In a few days I will get 5 or 6 and then I will have to decide who to use. So, help me out. Who is your favorite mail order supplier? Which one seems to do the best job? I welcome any and all opinions. Email replys welcomed. (I'm sure this would be old hat to most.) Thanks, Cary Camden Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Aug 93 13:16:13 GMT+1100 From: Davin Slade <10692851 at eng2.eng.monash.edu.au> Subject: Boiling I am only new to the brewing idea so please forgive my ignorance. When people talk about boiling is this to produce the syrup that you can buy in the can from the homebrew shop. ie to make your own taste. If so i assume you add the yeast later after it as cooled to the temperature for brewing. - ------------------------------------------------------------ Davin Slade, 4th Year Civil Engineering, Monash Uni, Oz 10692851 at eng2.eng.monash.edu.au or baldrick at yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au - ------------------------------------------------------------ "It was georgiousness and georgosity in the flesh" Alexander de Large, A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrik, 1971 - ------------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 17:22:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: Matthias Wrase <mwr at cs.tu-berlin.de> Subject: my own hops Howdy ! It's time to harvest hops down here in Germany, so I took a look and found some very good looking plants in close vicinity to my parents' house. I have two resulting questions: 1) it's most probable that these are "wild" hops. Are these useable for homebrewing anyway ? 2) if I can use these hops - how can I measure the amount of alpha-acid so I know how much to use of them for my next batch ? Thanks in advance for any response ! Matt - -- *************************************************************************** * Matthias Wrase | * * mwr at cs.tu-berlin.de | TU Berlin - only the fittest survive * * mwr at marie.physik.tu-berlin.de | * * ag729 at freenet.hsc.colorado.edu| * *************************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 07:57:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom.Weicht at arrc.ncsu.edu Subject: C. cerevisiae taxonomy? Respond to: deb_neher at ncsu.edu Re: S. cerevisiae and taxonomy, 1 of 2 (The most important IMO) I originally had this posting over 8K. If I can post more than 8K per day, the other will follow today. Other wise, the other will follow tomorrow. There are more direct answers to others posting on this subject in 2 of 2. The main point I wanted to make in my first posting was that in industrial/commercial culture collections taxonomy is often perverted for a variety of reasons, and as a result, caution should be used when accepting a classification as RIGHT or dismissing a classification as WRONG. The requirements for proof of a species may be beyond what is possible for every isolate used in fermentation when the current genetic status of commercial yeast cultures make this difficult at best, and impossible based on traditional taxonomic approaches. The fermentation sciences do not hold to the same naming convention as other practical sciences using mycological taxonomy. This could ultimately result in few vegetatively propagated isolates which have been in the industry for a long time, but incorrectly classified as S. cerevisiae. The fungi unlike other organisms can be correctly classified under more than one latin binomial. The ideal latin binomial for a fungus is the one reflecting the sex reproductive stage or teleomorph. However, a fungus (or fungal culture) which does not readily show this stage, but also, has an asexual reproductive stage or anamorph will have a latin binomial related to this stage, these are the Fungi Imperfecti. Therefore, in order to resolve controversy over a yeast's teleomorphic identity, in the case of the Saccharomycetaceae, the asci and ascospores would have to be produced. However, many commercial isolates have lost their ability to sporulate. This is the result of polyploidy (multiple genomes; greater than 2x the haploid or diploid) and aneuploidy (a genome which is not an even multiple of the haploid). This genomic status is important to the fermenting and baking industries because of the genetic stability and minimal susceptibility to mutation multiple genomes confer on an isolate. Laboratory isolates of species of the Saccharomycetaceae are often relatively stable haploids and diploids. Because of asporogenous ambiguities many authors address the species "S. cerevisiae (sensu lato or s.l.)"=" S. cerevisiae (in the broad sense)" suggesting that it may be a complex of organisms which deserve other classifications. Therefore, best source for understanding the asporogenic brewing yeasts will be the tools of molecular genetic: mapping, probing (genomes, mitochondria and ribosomes), restriction fragment length polymorphism, and random polymerase chain reaction patterns (PCR fingerprints). Fungal genomes are large and the necessary technologies are just becoming widespread enough so that probably much information will be available in the next few years. Currently, most research seems to be with laboratory isolates. Based on classical taxonomy, the anamorph of yeasts used in brewing may be best, or most confidently, classified as Candida (cerevisiae??). The precedence established in the Sylloge Fungorum by Saccardo, has the hierarchy of characteristics used to classify the Fungi Imperfecti as follows: Conidia (spores or buds) take precedence over mycelial structures. A description of the genus from Barnett and Hunter, Illustrated Genera of Imperfect Fungi reads: Mycelium not extensive; conidia (blastospores) hyaline, 1- celled, ovoid to fusoid, forming short chains by budding. Because of Saccardo's precedence to spores, I am ignoring mycelium in the description. The ontogeny of blastospores is identical to budding. The down side of this classification is that it is uninformative. This genus is basically a trash can. Candida has members which are both basidiosporogenous and ascosporogenous. When addressing a fungus in standard communications, most other sciences use a name which applies to the morphological stage which dominates process. For instance, if a vineyard were inoculated with Botrytis cinerea, it would be called Botrytis (anamorph) and not Sclerotinia (teleomorph). Even in brewing, when addressing the organisms which occur in a lambic, Brettanomyces (anamorph) is used over Dekkera (teleomorph). That the teleomorph Saccharomyces is used over an anamorphic classification in commercial industries could be the result of several circumstances. First, as stated earlier, the genus Candida is uninformative while Saccharomyces is more informative because it is a narrower description. In the above examples where anamorphs are used over the teleomorph, the anamorphs are very narrow and relate directly to one teleomorphic genus and are therefore, very descriptive and informative. The other reason Saccharomyces may be used over an anamorphic name may relate to a historical precedence. Almost certainly the past fermentations would have contained asci and selection toward asporogenous cultures occurred because of man's selective pressure. Because of this previous association, Saccharomyces was linked intimately with the nomenclature surrounding the fermentation process and because changing the nomenclature denotes less information there has been no strong pressure to change. However, to call an isolate Saccharomyces spp. when only an asporogenous cultures exists has it liabilities because there is the connotation of sexual relatedness which may be unavailable. Further, because of the economic potential of these organisms there is probably much information not in the public domain. To feel secure about a particular classification of a particular isolate used in brewing or to rule another one out is probably not wise. Older more established collections of asporogenous yeasts are potentially sources where a few incorrect classifications may be found because of the fluxes which occur in the taxonomy of the entire subfamily Saccharomycetoideae. There is no basis upon which to classify a yeast if it only buds. Modern molecular tools and researchers studying these yeasts will establish the new basis of classification by comparing their results with traditional taxonomy. I doubt any of us have access to the teleomorphs the fungi in question or can find the appropriate citations describing these ascii and ascospores in the detail required to make an independent judgement, and proof if it exists in the literature is probably buried in an article with a title like "Authentication of ATCC Strains in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Complex by PCR Fingerprinting". I suspect that as more isolates are studied with the tools of molecular genetics these organisms will be shuffled and reshuffled for years to come. Not all isolates are asporogenous, many are only difficultly sporogenous and some are relatively easily sporogenous. If any body on the HBD has information on this relative to brewing cultures I would like to know. Tom Weicht (respond to deb_neher at ncsu.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 07:59:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom.Weicht at arrc.ncsu.edu Subject: Taxonomy Debate REspond to: deb_neher at ncsu.edu Re: S. cerevisiae and taxonomy, The debate, 2 of 2. I originally had this posting over 8K. I would have preferred some of this prefacing 1 of 2 and some of this as post script to 1 of 2. I would like to start by saying that I appreciate the feed back from my original posting, and I like debate as a way to refine my ideas; PLEASE DON'T TAKE ANY OF THIS AS A PERSONAL ATTACK or AN OUT OF CONTROL FIRE-FIGHT; I plan to be polite. I revisited some of the ideas and expanded on a few others in my second posting on this subject; particularly some of the subtleties of mycological taxonomy and certain areas of conflict and incongruities which have shaped my thoughts and prejudices on this subject area. Unlike just about any other area there is the potential for a great amount of debate on taxonomy. First off, I want to say after rereading my original posting, I feel much of the response coming from it originates from an over statement of my position: "Saccharomyces delbrukii or S. cerevisiae?? I personally believe both are technically incorrect. From the best that I have been able to find in the mycological taxonomy literature, the true name of this organism is Torulospora delbrukii, this is how the American Type Culture Collection lists it which sparked my interest and pursuit of this subject." A more appropriate stating would have been: "Saccharomyces delbrukii or S. cerevisiae?? I personally believe both MAY BE technically incorrect. From the best that I have been able to find in the mycological taxonomy literature, the true name of this organism is Torulospora delbrukii, this is how the American Type Culture Collection lists it which sparked my interest and THOUGHTS ON this subject." Admittedly all I have ever looked up on this subject was the description of the teleomorph (sexual reproductive stage). Like several of the other posters (responders) both public and private, all I have found from the standard data base literature search on the subject was the reference to wine, and although I was tempted to acquire the ATCC isolate, I remember refraining because this isolate had not come from a brewing source. I suspect that if there is a publication in support of Wyeast, it is probably in molecular genetics article on S. cerevisiae and will take time to ferret out, ie. Computer data based searches on the obvious are probably incomplete. I have not prioritized this subject high enough to have done this work yet. By the way I was reexamining my latest Current Contents search and found this citation. Author JL Huffman Title Authentication of ATCC Strains in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Complex by PCR Fingerprinting (Vol16, Pg 316, 1992) Source Experimental Mycology 17: 2 (JUN 1993) Page 155 (It looks like there may have been two sources?? This is how I sucked it up from the search.) I could conclude that I fell into a Wyeast myth as some of the posting have suggested. Admittedly, I made the assumption that there was some truth in their classification. Although there are fraudulent products available to the HOMEBREWER, I assumed there was no profit motive in this and thus, no reason to deceive the HOMEBREWER. (Antidotal reports suggest that since Siebel lost the contract for the Witbread yeast one distributer still distributes a yeast under that name; this APPEARS to be FRAUDULENT.) In fact, wouldn't the market place be more receptive to classifying this yeast as the classic weisbier yeast? HOWEVER, to base a classification on a classification in Weihenstephan is to make the same assumption I made. The only difference is that Weihenstephan is more sentimentally favored over Wyeast. (See explanation about asporogenous classification in the previous posting). The next issue of The Yeasts a Taxonomic Study will probably be a good source to settle some of our current issues of debate, but as the current issue YTS III seems to already have been surpassed by the research in the area of classification it too will also become out dated quickly (see the second half of my first posting where S. carlsbergensis, may be better classified as S. pastorianus). IMO there will be a explosion in taxonomical rearrangement as more isolates are tested with the tools of molecular genetics. Because of the asporogenous nature of some isolates classified as S. cerevisiae the current status of the species is that of a repository for many isolates which may not be proven true members of the species. ie. S. cerevisiae has become a taxonomic trash can to a limited extent. Essentially, this status diminishes the information that can be concluded based on classification alone. It maybe interesting to contact Wyeast and see if they would share their source for classifying their isolate and if it is related to the Weihenstephan #68. I will write them a letter when I have time again to write some thing, and I will share this response if I get one. Again, if there is a source of information about which isolates are sporogenous please inform me. I would enjoy proving the taxonmic status of any questionable isolates, and I am happy to change my opinion about the isolates in question. I should include a small biography to let readers know where I am coming from, but I written a lot and have taken more time than I have for my brewing hobby. I'm too lazy to say much more than: I have two degrees in Plant Pathology (under grad and masters) from UC Davis. I have had two mycology courses in my history, an undergrad and grad, one of which I have also TA'ed. The grad version was an eclectic mix of every taxonomical opinion ever sustained in the discipline for more than one author. I collect slime molds as pets (for real) and pursue Chantharellus and other edibles in the woods regularly. I have published one key, but to tomato diseases not fungi, although a small fungal/pathogen key is part of the whole. Tom Weicht (respond to deb_neher at ncsu.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 08:59:00 +0000 From: "Rick (R.) Cavasin" <cav at bnr.ca> Subject: re:WORT AERATION Jack, Just a little quibble with your experiment. I wonder if there isn't one confounding variable you've overlooked, namely, fermenter geometry. The surface area/wort volume ratio, and the amount of head space in the quart jar fermenters is radically different than what most people would encounter in normal sized homebrew batches, even for people doing open fermentations is buckets. (people using blowoff tubes would fill their carboys near full, resulting in small surface areas with almost no headspace). I wonder if the rate of diffusion of oxygen from the headspace into the wort doesn't compensate for the lack of aeration in your 'control' sample. If people were using half empty carboys as primary fermenters (which I've done actually, got tired of fiddling with blowoff tubes and such - just split the batch between two carboys for the primary, then rack back into one for secondary), the comparison would be more valid. In the case of your lager test, is a starter/wort ratio of 1/10 typical? (don't know, don't do lagers myself) Cheers, Rick C. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 9:22:11 EDT From: pconti at mercury.hyperdesk.com (Paul Conti) Subject: strike temperatures > Andy Phillips writes: > Subject: Strike temperature > > This is probably an FAQ, but can someone tell me the > specific heat capacity of crushed malt, so that I can > heat my strike liquor to the right temperature (65C)? Dave Line's > books don't seem to take the mass of grains into account when > calculating strike temperature. Alternatively, could you tell me > waht mass of grains you use and at what temperature, the volume of > water and strike temperature, and the final mash temperature, so > that I can work it out for myself. It depends on the mosture content of the grain, but a good figure is .4 c/gram. You will most likely need to experiment in any case when you run your numbers. For single step infusion using my gott cooler with slotted copper pipes and assumming grain at room temperature (68F), and further assuming 1qt of water per pound of grain my strike temperatures are: Strike Heat Mash Temp 160F (71.0C) 148F (64.4C) 162F (72.1C) 150F (65.5C) 164F (73.3C) 152F (66.6C) 167F (75.0C) 154F (67.7C) 169F (76.1C) 156F (68.8C) 172F (77.7C) 158F (69.9C) When I do an upward step infusion I use 24oz of water per pound of grain with a strike heat of 146F (63.3C) and I get a mash temp around 122F (50C). For the second step I add an addition 1/2 qt of boiling water 212F (100C) per pound of grain and my mash goes to 150F (65.5C). I find it best to add strike water at few degrees higher than I really want. I then let it drop to the correct temperature in my mash tun before adding my grains. This works best for me. Your mileage may vary. - -- Paul Conti | HyperDesk Corporation | Email: paul_c at hyperdesk.com Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Aug 93 14:49:04 GMT From: GANDE at slims.attmail.com Subject: re: Welding Stainless In HBD1206, Brian Vandewettering asks about welding stainless steel. A year or so ago I made a boiler out of a Sanke keg and welding a nipple into the bottom was required. I took the keg to a "professional" welding shop and inquired. The welders comments re stainless were: 1. It's considered a white metal and arc welding is very difficult if not impossible. 2. MIG welds (Metal Inert Gas) contain cadimum. Poisonous and could leach into your brew, the welder said MIG's are never put on surfaces to be in contact with food. 3. TIG welds (Tungsten Inert Gas) contains no toxic metals, will weld white metals, very strong and non-toxic. This is what I had put on my keg and it's been fine for over a year. TIG welding is an art, apparantly, so it may cost a little more. My job (weld 3 little legs and a nipple, 2 holes cut with a plasma torch) ran about $45(CANADIAN). ....GA +----------------------------------+ | Internet: gande at slims.attmail.com| | Glenn Anderson | | Manager, Telecom. Facilities | | Sun Life of Canada | +----------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 10:11:40 EDT From: "Anton Verhulst" <verhulst at zk3.dec.com> Subject: Yeast Culture Kit Company Does anybody have the adderss or phone number of the Yeast Culture Kit Company? - --Tony Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 10:45:59 EST From: Kristof_Mueller at voyager.umeres.maine.edu Subject: Bar Harbor Ale I just tried a fantastic microbrew last night. It is from Bar Harbor, Maine, my home state. They have three brews: Real Ale, Pale Ale, and Coal Porter (a stout) They were all good, and I suggest trying some if you are ever in the area. They also give tours of there brewery, so check that out as well. - --Kris Mueller Beer, Beer Starts with a B Ends with a R And has two E's Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 10:39 CDT From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Yeast >From: Jim Griggers <brew at devine.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> >Subject: Shipping live yeast >The yeast arrived Friday in a plain manila envelope in the US Mail. My mail box is a standard flat-black metal rural box that spends 75% of its time in direct sunlight..... (I drive 80 miles, each way, to Charlotte, NC to buy yeast, so I usually stockpile.) One of the great advantages of culturing one's own yeast is that yeast purchases become a very rare event, dictated more by wanting to try something new than by the brewing schedule. An obvious solution to the hot mailbox is to purchase culture yeast in cool weather. Actually "buying" yeast could become a thing of the past. I haven't purchased any yeast since the last time I used EDME. They have all come via swaps with other homebrewers. It occurs to me that yeast swapping could be very effectively supported by computer networks. If we can use them to find out the names of pubs in a town to be visited, we should be able to just as effectively find a free yeast culture we want. ATTN: YEAST SWAP I will start the ball rolling by offering a PU culture for a good European red wine culture. >I am NOT knocking the shop owner or _*deleted*_, but I am questioning their choice of shipping. I thought it was YOUR choice. Didn't they offer air as an option? >From: korz at iepubj.att.com > WYeast 2124 Bohemian Lager Yeast > The traditional saaz yeast from Czechoslovakia. Ferments > clean and malty, rich residual maltiness in high gravity > pilsners, medium flocculation, apparent attenuation > 69-73%. Optimum fermentation temperature: 48 deg. F (9 > deg. C). <Allegedly, one of the four (?) Pilsner Urquell yeasts. Two rumors I would like verified here.... The first is the blending of (4) different beers from (4) different yeasts by PU. This was reported in an article I just read but do not recall where. Nothing of this sort was reported by Daryl Richman from his visit to the brewery. I was told by "someone" and it may have been the owner of Wyeast that they do not have a yeast from PU. It is similar but not one of their yeasts. The yeast I use was obtained by Paul Farnswort from PU and in a conversation with him, he mentioned nothing about (4) yeasts. I would not have started using it if it was just one of four used. I will call him but would like some backup facts/rumors first. js Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 10:34:38 -0600 From: Kelly Jones <k-jones at ee.utah.edu> Subject: Heat Capacity of Malt / Infusion Calculations In HBD #1206, Andy Phillips asks about the heat capacity of crushed malt, to be used for calculations of infusion mashes. I have found that the number 1350 (where water is about 4200) to work well for me. I believe the units are J/Kg/K, but this is not important. Alternately, one could use the dimensionless number 0.32 for the malt, where water is equal to one. Of course, this will vary somewhat depending on the type of malt used, the moisture content of the malt, etc. but this should be a good starting point. For those not familiar with these calculations, I will present them here: First, let Cpm= heat capacity of your malt, about 0.32 Cpw= heat capacity of water, 1.0 Mw = mass of water used Mm = mass of malt used Tw = temperature of strike water Tm = beginning temperature of malt (usually room temperature) Tf = final temperature of mixture (rest temp) Masses and temperatures can be in any units, as long as you are consistent. The basic formula, then, is (1) Tf = (Cpm*Mm*Tm + Cpw*Mw*Tw)/(Cpm*Mm+Cpw*Mw) This can be rearranged in many ways to solve for the desired unknown. For example, if we want to know the quantity of water to add to result in a desired protein rest temperature, we can write (2) Mw = Cpm*Mm*(Tf-Tm)/(Cpw*(Tw-Tf)) or, using the numbers for Cpm&Cpw, (3) Mw = .32*Mm*(Tf-Tm)/(Tw-Tf) SO, suppose you have 4Kg of malt at 25C, and you want to add some quantity of water at 54C to achieve a protein rest temperature of 50C: Mw = .32*4*(50-25)/(54-50) = 8Kg of water These formulas can also be used to calculate additional water quantities to raise the mash temp further. However, different variables must be used: Instead of Mm, we will substitute Mmash, the mass of the mash, equal to the total mass of malt and water used so far; for Tm, we will substitute Tmash; and for Cpm, we must use Cpmash, calculated as Cpmash = (Cpm*Mm +Cpw*Mw)/(Mm+Mw) Thus, the revised formula (2) is Mw = Cpmash*Mmash*(Tf-Tmash)/(Tw-Tf) continuing our example, we have Mmash = 4Kg +8Kg = 12Kg, Cpmash = (.32*4+1*8)/(4+8)= .773. Suppose our mash temp is still at 50C, and we want to raise it to 66C for a sacharification rest using some quantity of water at 100C. Then Mw = .773*12*(66-50)/(100-50) = 3Kg of additional (boiling) water. Some simplifying assumptions have been made here, but they seem to work out just fine. (So please don't get on my case about enthalpies of mixing, non-additive Cp's, etc.) You may need to play around with the value of Cpm to get these eaquations to work out better for you. Also remember that your mash tun will absorb some heat, resulting in a rest temperature slightly lower than that predicted here. You may want to shoot for a degree or so higher to compensate. Note that your boiling water temp may not be 100C. Equation (1) may be rearranged, if instead it is desired to know, for example, what water temperature should be used to obtain a given temperature rest for a given volume of water ( if one is shooting for some specific mash thickness). Hope this helps (or did it just confuse the hell out of you?), Kelly <k-jones at ee.utah.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 11:35:23 CDT From: inline at vnet.IBM.COM Subject: Cold plates and wort chilling With all the recent talk about cooling wort, I started wondering if you could use a cold plate to accomplish this. If the tubing inside the cold plate isn't SS you might get off flavors, or you might clog the thing up with hop particles, but is it a valid idea ? Any thoughts/experiences ? ************************************************************** Chris Williams inline at vnet.ibm.com ************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 11:47:14 CST From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu> Subject: re: Wort Aeration A comment on Jack Schmedling's experiment on wort aeration and my own experience. Jack very interesting experiment. Thanks for running it and posting results. I have two questions/concerns about the small scale of your experiments. 1) I'm curious about the geometry of your small fermenters. Specifically I'm wondering about the relative amount of wort exposed to air and thereby oxygen. Let's call the specific area exposed to air Aa: This is area exposed to air (sq in) Aa = --------------------------------- volume of wort (cubic in) For a cylindrical fermenter this number will be: pi*radius^2 Aa = ----------------------------- (height_of_wort)*pi*radius^2 or Aa = 1/height_of_wort For my glass primary with wort say 20 inches deep in it Aa = 1/20in or 0.05/in. For a mason jar with 6 inches of wort in it Aa = 1/6in or 0.17/in. So all your small scale fermenters have access to a lot more oxygen than my 'full scale' primary fermenter. 2) It's my understanding that oxygen is important during the inital growth/reproductive phase of the yeast (help here from you microbiologists). If you pitched enough active yeast that they didn't need to reproduce (to reach the maximum number of colonies/ml), then the amount of oxygen present may be irrelavent. Having made all these theoretical observations here is my practical experience: I siphon my cool wort into the primary through a aerating tube. The aerating tube is a 6 in long plastic tube w/ 1/32" holes drilled in the tube wall near one end. (This end is near the siphon hose not at the end the wort exits.) It works just like your sink aerator; air is drawn into the tube through the 1/32" holes and the wort exits as a frothy liquid. When the siphoning is done there is 2 to 6" of foam on top of the wort. I pitch an active starter solution. The volume of the starter solution (wort+yeast slurry) is 2 cups. I always see active fermentation within 12 hours, usually faster. (I don't get up every four hours to see if my beer is working--Jack you're dedicated.) This info is for ale yeast. Followed this procedure last night. Pitched yeast at 11:00 pm by 8:00am this morning there was a full krausen. Bottom line: I agree with Jack at least for ales. One doesn't need the air pump system for ales, if you use a good active yeast starter and aerate wort going into the fermenter. Sante' WAK Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 12:56:58 EDT From: Keith A. MacNeal HLO1-1/T09 DTN 225-6171 18-Aug-1993 1252 <macneal at pate.enet.dec.com> Subject: Irish Ale Yeast The description of Wyeast's Irish Ale yeast recently posted says that is not very attenuative. I recently used it for an Imperial Stout (a variation of Miller's extract/mash recipe in Brewing the World's Great Beers). Although the OG was a bit lower than the OG in the recipe, the FG was also a bit lower than the recipe. The stout tasted quite alcoholic when bottled. Keith MacNeal Digital Equipment Corp. Hudson, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 12:18:53 -0400 From: Bill Flowers <waflowers at qnx.com> Subject: Details re. Hard, high pH water treatment for new masher OK, I got the water analyses for my home and my office. When I actually had numbers in my hand and re-read Miller's Complete Handbook chapter on water, I finally began to understand what I was dealing with and, maybe, what to do. I'm going to post a lot of details here and some conclusions so someone with more experience and knowlege can double check me. Apologies ahead of time for the length of this. My home tap water is drawn from two wells. Unfortunately the regional lab doesn't do a complete analysis of the well water. All I got was readings of some characteristics for the last 7 months. The averages of the pertinent numbers are: pH 7.8 sulphates (ppm) 68 Total Alkalinity, as CaCO3 250 Total Hardness, as CaCO3 256 There were a few other numbers of no consequence as well. I wouldn't know what to do with this water, but it doesn't sound great. Luckily I've got another water source. The analysis of my office's water was another matter. I received max, min and average values for both the raw and treated water, and more information than I could enter into this message (now I know how much uranium is in the water I drink). The important things (I think) are: Treated Water mg/L (ppm) unless otherwise stated min max avg --- --- --- pH 6.8 9.9 8.3 Total Alkalinity, as CaCO3 17.0 48.0 25.8 Total Hardness, as CaCO3 26.0 72.0 51.7 Chloride, Cl 3.5 8.0 5.3 Calcium, Ca 15.00 18.60 16.80 Magnesium, Mg 1.94 2.43 2.28 Potassium, K 0.728 0.820 0.776 Sodium, Na 2.78 3.78 3.12 Sulphate, SO4 19.60 30.50 24.00 Other values are in the parts per billions or Miller wasn't concerned with them (or both) so why should I be. Who cares about immeasurably small traces of Vanadium when brewing anyway? This water seems to be rather nice for brewing. It doesn't seem too far off of Miller's St. Louis water which he discusses in detail (actually better in some areas such as sulphate and sodium). Although the pH is sometimes high the buffering capacity (total alkalinity) seems low so the mash water pH should drop. In fact, the alkalinity might be too low and I may have to add calcium carbonate. It is always easier to add than to take away. Also, just as Miller does, I should probably acidify my sparge water. At least, that's how I interpret these numbers. How do they look to the "experts"? How important is it to acidify the sparge water? What happens if I don't? All I could find was Miller's comment: "It is desirable to keep the pH of the runoff during sparging below 6.0." - --- W.A. (Bill) Flowers email: waflowers at qnx.com QNX Software Systems, Ltd. QUICS: bill (613) 591-0934 (data) (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 13:41:32 EDT From: hpfcla.fc.hp.com!scr!sead.siemens.com!jm (Jeff Mizener) Subject: Beer in Portland, Maine & Spokane, WA I'll be going to Portland (ME) and Spokane here pretty soon and would like pointers to any good brewpubs or drinking esablishments. Thanks, y'all. Jeff ============================================================= Jeff Mizener / Siemens Energy & Automation / Raleigh NC jm at sead.siemens.com / Intelligent SwitchGear Systems ============================================================= PLEASE: Reply to this address and not the one in the header. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 11:02:07 PDT From: Robert Pulliam <Robert_Pulliam at rand.org> Subject: Indianapolis Just a short one for those in the Indianapolis area. Any good "don't miss" watering holes there? Please reply by direct e-mail. Thanks Robert J. Pulliam |+|all thoughts, statements, and opinions,|+| Los Angeles, CA. |+|demented or not, should be my own; and |+| pulliam at monty.rand.org |+|I'm certainly not associated . . . . . |+| Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1207, 08/19/93