HOMEBREW Digest #4139 Tue 07 January 2003

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          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 *********

  Re: Dry Yeast is a joke ("Todd")
  re:dry yeast sucks ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Hah! (Bob Sheck)
  very high gravity brewing (ensmingr)
  re: Yeast & Maylasia ("Steve Alexander")
  Re: Dry yeast ("Chad Gould")
  Dry Yeast ("Dan Listermann")
  Re: Dry Yeast Jokes ("Drew Avis")
  Dual use of Beer Equipment for Wine Making ("Romanowsky, Paul")
  RE: Dry yeasts (Brian Lundeen)
  Poor Carbonation in homebrewed Root Beer ("Romanowsky, Paul")
  Staining with the use of Iodophor ("Romanowsky, Paul")
  Reclaiming yeast from one batch to another ("Romanowsky, Paul")
  Full 5 gal boil of Extract brew ("Romanowsky, Paul")
  Who..hold on a sec. Bill, Was Dry Yeast is a joke (Wil)
  Lallemand (Bill Wible)
  White Labs strains (Bill Wible)
  re: Flouride ("Steve Alexander")
  re: denaturing enzymes via pump ("Steve Alexander")
  RE: RO Water ("Mike Sharp")
  re dry yeaat ("Steve Alexander")
  Update from BrewingTechniques (BrewingTechniques)
  Mash tun for 10 gallon batches ("Brian Schar")
  Coconut Cup (jakem1)
  Re: re dry yeaat ("Helomech")
  Beer Consulting revisited ("Kenneth Peters")

* * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore * * 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. 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 at hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:28:30 -0800 From: "Todd" <bis9170 at cox.net> Subject: Re: Dry Yeast is a joke > Subject: Re: Dry Yeast is a joke > First, I own a homebrew shop, and > Time after time, I steer these people to liquid yeast, > and time after time, their beer consistently improves > 1000%. Just a quick comment. While I don't doubt that you are exteremely reputable and ethical in your LHBS business, it sends a bad message when you talk about being both a homebrew shop owner, *and* that you always steer folks towards the more expensive liquid yeasts. Talk about having a ton of expereince in the homebrewing hobby, how many years you've been a BJCP Judge, etc, etc... But when you throw in the fact that you stand to profit from steering your customers away from an inexpensive product towards a more profitable product, it sends up a credibility red-flag (in my book, at least). (Most dealers do this, FWIW) That's all semantics, however. The crux of the matter (is dry yeast worth it?) is that it's a documented fact that many fine award-winning brews have been made with dry yeast. If your extensive experience has said otherwise, then that is indeed note-worthy. But there is too much evidence to the contrary to throw out the blanket statement that "all dry yeast is a joke". There's just too much of a disconnect between the results you have seen to the results that the vast majority of homebrewers (world-wide) for that staement to hold much water. (FWIW: I personally use liquid yeast exclusively, only due to that fact that White Labs is only a few miles down the road.) Cheers, Todd Eye Chart Brewing Company San Diego, CA "Beers So Bitter, Your Eyes Will Cross!" http://www.eyechartbrewing.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:01:34 -0500 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: re:dry yeast sucks Bill writes: >>Sorry to disappoint you, but: >>First, I own a homebrew shop, and I'm probably more up to >>date on the current dry yeasts that are available than >>any of you are. You won't disappoint any of us, your customers probably, but none of us. You mentioned: >>I get beers brought to >>me for evaluation. Always the same problem - phenolic, >>like band aids and chloroseptic. Always the same story, >>always extract beers, made with dry yeast. Well I searched the archives and came up with the following someone posted about that type of off flavors. >>I can't give you scientific theory as to why bleach has to be rinsed well, >>other that the fact that it is a chemical that leaves residue. And I'm >>not 100% positive about that. >> I remember reading someplace that chlorophenols are detectable in beer >>by the 'average' person at extremely low levels.... >>Bleach can contribute chlorophenols. That's all I know. Remember posting that? Get on the phone and get some spec sheets for the dry yeasts out there. You will see that they are well within "brewery" tolerances, something like 16 CFU/ml, breweries hold a spec of 4 to ~40 CFU/ml.They (dry yeasts) are also devoid of wild yeasts, the source of phenolic "yeast flavors"(excepting *special wheat yeasts). I know many people making beers without phenolic off-flavors all using dry yeasts. Very commonly yeast problems comes from storage, checked that? Is everyone filtering their make up water? Too many unanswered questions to blame the yeast. "A man's got to know his limitations." NL Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:43:47 -0500 From: Bob Sheck <bobsheck at earthlink.net> Subject: Hah! This is a no-brainer. Fill your carboy up to the neck with water. Then dump it in your plastic fermenter vessel. Get a indelible marker and make a line at the level of liquid. Then on the next brew, make sure you get enough liquid into the fermenter! Duh! Bob Sheck // DEA - Down East Alers - Greenville, NC bsheck at earthlink.net // [583.2,140.6] Apparent Rennerian Home Brewing since 1993 // bobsheck at earthlink.net // Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 02:06:53 -0500 From: ensmingr at twcny.rr.com Subject: very high gravity brewing Greetings, Having made a smoked potato beer, a wasabi beer, and a blueberry braggot (not all of them successful), I'm now interested in making a *very* high gravity beer, something on the order of 20%. Anyone else done this? White Labs makes a yeast (WLP099) that is supposed to go to 25% and their web site ( http://www.whitelabs.com/gravity.html ) lists these suggestions: *Aerate very heavily, 4 times as much as with a normal gravity beer. Less oxygen dissolves into solution at high gravity. *Pitch 3-4 times as much yeast as normal. *Consider aerating intermittently during the first 5 days of fermentation. This will help yeast cells during a very difficult fermentation. Aerate with oxygen for 30 seconds or air for 5-10 minutes. *Higher nutrient levels can allow yeast to tolerate higher alcohol levels. Use 2 times the normal nutrient level. This is especially important when using WLP099 to make wine and mead, which have almost no nutrient level to begin with. *Do not start with the entire wort sugar at once. Begin fermentation with a wort that would produce a 6-8% beer, and add wort (it can be concentrated) each day during the first 5 days. This can be done together with aeration. This is mandatory if the reported 25% ABV is to be achieved. All these suggestions seem very sensible. My only additional thoughts would be to repitch an appropriate yeast(s) each time more wort is added. I'd like to hear from anyone who has made (or tried to make) a very high gravity beer. TIA. Cheerio! Peter A. Ensminger Syracuse, NY http://hbd.org/ensmingr Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 06:02:44 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: Yeast & Maylasia BillW says ... >And despite your bleak observations, the Wyeast and White Labs >vials work just fine. I've made some good ales with that sort of pitching rate (60B cells in 5gal) but it's a disaster for lagers unless you are looking for esters and a painfully slow fermentation. The 60B cells that *optimistically* appear in the WY and WL tubes are not sufficient for lagers or high gravity ales. Even low grav ales can suffer at this rate. If you've ever fermented a lager on a big active slurry you'll recognize what a clean fermentation is supposed to taste like and you cannot possibly get that with 3B cells per liter. Heck, I have friends who believe the only good lager fermentation is one made on the 'yeast cake' of a previous 'sacrificial' batch and I think they are just about right. Bill also says ... >Dry yeast is a joke. Could you expand on that Bill ? Why is it a joke ? Lallemand and DCL taken together have a limited range of yeast strains, but I've heard nothing but positive feedback on the quality and the Lallemand is cheap too. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:10:19 -0500 From: "Chad Gould" <cgould11 at tampabay.rr.com> Subject: Re: Dry yeast > Second, I used dry yeast myself as recently as November > 12th, 2002, according to my records. It was Munton's Gold. > It was brewed in a Munton's Gold kit. These are supposed > to be superior kits, and the gold is supposed to their > superior yeast. > Occasionally, I do make the products that I sell myself, > for evaluation purposes, and I even follow the exact kit > instructions sometimes, too, to see how good or how bad > they are. I suspect that half of the problem was that this was a kit? Many of the beers that come in kits contain mediocre instructions (e.g. too short of a fermentation/conditioning time), and/or a lot of refined sugar (which combined with aged malt extract leads to all sorts of funky taste problems). Liquid yeast gains you a much greater variety of flavors. But I can't see steering people away from liquid yeast. The extract-based blonde ale I made with Danstar Nottingham turned out very nice - quite clean, if a tad "British" (diacetyl, I guess? But pleasently so.). Since this was a low gravity beer, I think I would expect to notice clovey/phenolic aromas quite easily. I normally use Wyeast for the greater variety, but it's nice to know that I can use dry yeast in a pinch. Munton's Gold may be one of those yeasts that turn quite phenolic in high temperatures -- in which case, the solution is to ferment at a lower temperature. Or maybe one isn't rehydrating the yeast in 95F water beforehand (for optimal yeast cell count)? Or maybe the yeast packet is old, improperly stored, and dead? Or maybe chlorine from bleach or water is biting through in this recipe? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:53:37 -0500 From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com> Subject: Dry Yeast Bill Wible <bill at brewbyyou.net>wrote: <Second, I used dry yeast myself as recently as November <12th, 2002, according to my records. It was Munton's Gold. <It was brewed in a Munton's Gold kit. These are supposed <to be superior kits, and the gold is supposed to their <superior yeast. snip <The resulting beer was awful. Phenolic as all heck. snip <I know it had to be the yeast. <I can't tell you how many times I get beers brought to <me for evaluation. Always the same problem - phenolic, <like band aids and chloroseptic. Always the same story, <always extract beers, made with dry yeast I really like Munton's Gold yeast. I got away from it for a while trying other yeasts on the market and recently used it again in a mild and a nut brown. The first thing I thought when I tasted these brews was that I really missed Munton's Gold yeast. For fruity beers, it is hard to beat. Band aid phenolic is usually associated with chlorine. The two main sources of chlorine in homebrewing are its use as a sanitizer with insufficient rinsing or high levels in municipal tap water. I can't recall ever sensing chlorophenols in any beer I have made with Munton's Gold or any other yeast for that matter. I don't use chlorine to sanitize and Cincinnati's water has very low chlorine levels. I do get customers who bring beers in with this fault. They either used chlorine to sanitize or live in the outlying areas that have water that has higher chlorine levels in it. Chlorine as a sanitizer is very easy to over do because it is so cheap. Municipal water works frequently increase chlorine levels in the summer. Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com Free shipping for orders greater than $35 and East of the Mighty Miss. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:23:39 -0500 From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Dry Yeast Jokes Bill sez: "I own a homebrew shop, and I'm probably more up to date on the current dry yeasts that are available than any of you are... Don't tell me, I'll tell you." And then goes on to explain he brewed a Munton's kit with Munton's Gold yeast, which turned out poorly. Bill, you're free to your own opinion, but it certainly contradicts the experience of many brewers (including brewpubs and micros) that have been using dry yeast to make exceptional beers. Might be time to actually try some DCL and Lallemand yeasts in an all-grain wort? Don Hellen and H. Dowda ask about US sources for the complete DCL line, including K-97. Can't help you there, but if you can't find one, I wouldn't be afraid to order from Canada. I've ordered stuff from the US that has showed up here in 3 days, and shipping (via US Post *NOT* UPS) is reasonable. Add the exchange rate discount, and you're doing well. BTW PW *did* carry K-97, and may still do so - although they have an excellent web site it's not always up to date - I always call in my order and get clarification on what's available (often lots of stuff not on the site). Drew "No I Don't Own Stock In DCL or PW" Avis, Merrickville, Ontario http://www.strangebrew.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:36:34 -0500 From: "Romanowsky, Paul" <paul.romanowsky at siemens.com> Subject: Dual use of Beer Equipment for Wine Making Since my Beer brewing experiences have been nothing but GREAT!, I'm going to be taking another step and start making my own Wine. My question is: Is it OK to use some of the same equipment I use for my Homebrew to make Wine? I figure anything Glass or Stainless is OK to use for both, such as Carboys, Hydrometers, my 15 Gal fermentor made from a 1/2 keg, etc. BUT, what about any Plastic or Rubber equipment, such as fermentor pails, racking cane, tubing, rubber stoppers, plastic spigots, Wine Thief, etc???? Can I just use a cleaner to clean this equipment between Beer and Wine batches or should I buy all separate equipment for my Wine making and leave my Beer equipment for only making beer??? Also, are there any good e-mail newsletter sites such as this one for WINE Making?? Thanks to all responding in advance. Paul R Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:43:48 -0600 From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca> Subject: RE: Dry yeasts Bill Wible writes: > First, I own a homebrew shop, and I'm probably more up to > date on the current dry yeasts that are available than > any of you are. Unlikely. There is a staggering amount of knowledge in this forum. > Second, I used dry yeast myself as recently as November > 12th, 2002, according to my records. It was Munton's Gold. > It was brewed in a Munton's Gold kit. These are supposed > to be superior kits, and the gold is supposed to their > superior yeast. > > The resulting beer was awful. Phenolic as all heck. > I know it had to be the yeast. Have you done reasonably controlled comparisons, like fermenting two identical kits of the same age, under the same conditions, one with dry, one with liquid? For the example you mentioned above, it would be useful to know the pitching temperature of the wort, and the ambient temperature where it was fermented. How many dried yeasts have you tried? Have you explored the range of DCL yeasts? Unless you have considerable experience brewing with ALL dried yeasts, I don't see how you can expect such a blanket statement as "dry yeast is a joke" to be taken seriously. And you still haven't explained how Rob Moline wins awards at major beer festivals with dry yeast fermented beers. As for being "BJCP Recognized, just promoted", all that means is that you didn't achieve the requisite 60% mark on your first attempt(s), and scored somewhere in the 60-69% range on your latest try. I would say somewhere in that missing 30+% are the reasons why you hang on to such beliefs, Bill. I know a BJCP Certified judge (that's 70-79%) who uses DCL yeasts almost exclusively. Are you saying he can't pick out phenolics? All in all, you have not put forward a very convincing argument. I just hope inexperienced brewers coming into this forum ignore your advice on this topic. Cheers Brian Lundeen Brewing at [819 miles, 313.8 deg] aka Winnipeg Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:47:32 -0500 From: "Romanowsky, Paul" <paul.romanowsky at siemens.com> Subject: Poor Carbonation in homebrewed Root Beer Well, I tried making my first batch of Root Beer. OK, it's not real beer, but where do I turn with my questions if not to this forum?? Anyway, it was my first try at it. Also, my first experience with dry yeast, (been beer brewing with liquid yeast from the get go with nothing but great results, Wyeast and WL). I followed the instructions that came with the Root Beer extract to the letter. For the yeast I did what it stated: Used warm tap water, (which I checked the temp with my beer thermometer), at 98 deg F. Sprinkled the yeast in, (Muntons, I got from my HBS), stirred and let sit for 15 minutes and then stirred into the extract and water mix. The water used to mix the extract was also at 98 deg. Well it's been over a week with the bottled soda sitting in a closed room with temp set at 70 deg. NO CARBONATION at all. What should I now do to correct this. Should I dump all bottles back into a pot and remix in some more yeast and rebottle? Should I just open all the bottles and just sprinkle a few particles of yeast in each and recap?? I've tried shaking the sediment on the bottom up and just let them sit in the 70 deg some more but still it's flat. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks P.S. Anyone use liquid yeast for making soda?? Paul R Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:59:43 -0500 From: "Romanowsky, Paul" <paul.romanowsky at siemens.com> Subject: Staining with the use of Iodophor I've been using One-Step for my Cleansing and Sanitizing of beer equipment up until now. So far never had any nasties take up residence in my brew. Could be just lucky. Well, I've been reading the article on cleansers and sanitizers in the Jan-Feb issue of Brew Your Own. Also been listening to what all you chaps have to say about the same issue. I've come to the conclusion that I should start using Iodophor for my sanitizing needs and leave One-Step just for use as a cleaner, especially since I've moving on to all grain and kegging. My one reservation I have about the use of Iodophor is the problem that Iodophor might STAIN items that come in contact with it. Could someone out there please elaborate on this for me?? Exactly how bad is this staining it can cause. Does it just have the tendency to stain in the concentrated form or will it stain also when properly diluted??? My better half will definitely have issues with me if I start staining her floors, counter tops, large fiberglass laundry sink, etc. and I don't need to hear that noise if you know what I mean. Yeah she loves drinking the homebrew, but don't start destroying her kitchen or laundry room!!!!!!!! How about some feedback on this issue from those with experience using Iodophor. Thanks. Paul R Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:09:09 -0500 From: "Romanowsky, Paul" <paul.romanowsky at siemens.com> Subject: Reclaiming yeast from one batch to another I've been using Wyeast XL smack packs and White Labs pitchable tubs now for some time. Great results with both. But with the $6.50 price tag per package, I would like to try to reclaim yeast from one batch to another. I've never tried this before and have seen posts on this site talking about it but no one ever goes into great detail on exactly how it is done. I use either plastic pails or glass carboys to primary ferment and then rack off to a secondary 5 gal carboy when I brew. When and how do I extract good yeast from a fermenting batch. Then once I have this, what are the next steps to take in preserving this yeast for a future batch, (please address sanitation, yeast nutrient needs, yeast reproduction, etc.). Thanks Paul R Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:02:19 -0500 From: "Romanowsky, Paul" <paul.romanowsky at siemens.com> Subject: Full 5 gal boil of Extract brew I have just gotten equipped with a new brew kettle made from a 1/2 keg and also purchase a King Cooker propane burner. Since I received an Extract and Specialty grain kit, (IPA), for Christmas, that is the first batch I'm going to brew with it. My question involves brewing this type of extract kit using a full 5 gal. boil. Two Questions: 1. I want to end up with a full 5 gallons of wort after the boil is complete. So how much water should I start with taking evaporation during the 60 minute boil into account. 2. What about hops as far as quantity goes. One friend has told me that I will want to use less than called for in the extract recipe because hop utilization will be greater with a full boil. Any thoughts on that? Is there a rule of thumb to follow here. Thanks in advance Paul R Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:03:37 GMT From: Wil at maltydog.com Subject: Who..hold on a sec. Bill, Was Dry Yeast is a joke First Bill, I have to say that I think you over reacted. Chill, have a home brew. Learn from what others have done poorly in the great state of Tx. ;-) Next, I have owned a home brew store as long as your entire home brewing carrier (7 years). I started home brewing in St, louis when I was just starting collage at WUSTL. (ummm long time ago) I remember when Wyeast just came out! It was a dry time before that ;-) I have used just about every yeast I could get my hands on, Dry ale, Dry lager and 3 to 4 different types of liquid yeast.(anyone remember something called "pitch 5" or am in being over come by the cold medicine I'm taking) I have re-hydrated and not re-hydrated, I have pitched right from the slap pack and made starters, I have pitched vials of yeast and gallons of yeast, I have racking onto yeast in carboys and buckets and I have started yeast from slants. I have abused yeast and flushed yeast. I have even given ampho-B to my patients in the ICU that had systemic yeast infections, err, that's another story......But I will not go as far as to say "Don't tell me, I'll tell you" as you did in your post. But you should listen! Just FYI, Bill I have just recently stopped buying pre made kits (brewers best, true brew) and switch to packaging my own kits using bulk malt, grains, pellets hops etc. and yes, dry yeast. In doing so I had to (its a tuff job) test brew all the recipes using dry yeast and I must say, I have gallons of great tasting beer. The American style kits use nottingham and the British style kits use Muntons. I have them on tap in my store and people love em and buy them! read on.... I have learned you can make great beer only if you have GOOD FRESH ingredients and if you are willing to put the time and effort into using them CORRECTLY. This is the reason you will only find 3 types of canned, hopped, "kit" beers in my store at this time. (I stock the ones people that have to have that type of kit ask for the most). They just don't make GOOD beer and as far as I can remember they NEVER have, dry yeast or no dry yeast!!! So stop blaming the yeast and look at the big picture. I would have to say that it was the "kit" beer that was bad, not the yeast, after all, you can't polish a turd. >Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:28:33 -0500 >From: Bill Wible <bill at brewbyyou.net> >Subject: Re: Dry Yeast is a joke > >First, I own a homebrew shop, and I'm probably more up to >date on the current dry yeasts that are available than >any of you are. So lose the "here in the 21st century" >attitude right here, right now. Don't tell me, I'll >tell you. I'm not a child in your classroom. > <snip> Wil Kolb The Beer Man Plaza at East Cooper 607 B Johnnie Dodds Blvd Mt. Pleasant SC 29464 843-971-0805 Fax 843-971-3084 Wil at maltydog.com www.maltydog.com www.thebeermanstore.com Wil at thebeermanstore.com God bless America! Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:02:32 -0500 From: Bill Wible <bill at brewbyyou.net> Subject: Lallemand Wow, everybody sure has their opiions in yeast! Thanks for the posts and emails! I may just have to brew something and try the Lallemand, since everybody says its so great. Persoanlly, I have nt used this before. Windsor or Nottingham. For an APA, which would you recommend? I think I'll split my next batch and see. Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:18:47 -0500 From: Bill Wible <bill at brewbyyou.net> Subject: White Labs strains "As of next Monday, January 6th, the following strains will be discontinued: WLP009 Australian Ale, WLP036 - Dusseldorf Alt, and WLP730 - Chardonnay." "The new platinum strains for Jan & Feb will be WLP033 - Klassic Ale, and New! WLP510 - Belgian Bastone. White Labs will start shipping these strains the week of Jan 6th." Bill [482.2, 105.9] Apparent Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:41:34 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: Flouride Asher Reed says .... >I believe the only water purifiers that will remove fluoride from water are >distillers and reverse osmosis filters. Probably the only common methods. > You don't want to use water that >has been treated to either of these methods for brewing. Huh ? Aside from the fact that a little bit is of calcium is always desirable - there is absolutely no reason not to use distilled & RO water for brewing. am I missing something Asher ? -S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:48:40 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: denaturing enzymes via pump Marc Sedam says ... >Air bubbles in the pump head can be a recipe for disaster in >terms of denatured enzymes and oxidation [...] Hmm - well I agree about the oxidation issue, but shear forces in recirulation systems denature enzymes and it's measurable. The HBers small bore pumps and outlet side throttles add to the problem. I doubt that oxygen is much of a factor in denaturing enzymes but maybe you can elaborate Marc ? -S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:50:03 -0800 From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RO Water Asher Reed speaks on the subject of RO Water: "RO filters are capable of purifying water to a greater extent than distillers, entirely removing "contaminants" as small as mineral ions such as: calcium, sulfates, magnesium, sodium, and chloride -- the removal of which will effect hardness and pH. " This is not very accurate. Depending on the system, they may do a rather poor job of demineralizing (ie: 70-100 uS <microSiemens>, but good enough for drinking purposes) or in the the best systems (not found in the home), they might produce pretty pure water (1-10 uS). But they neither remove all of the contaminants, especially the ionic ones, nor do they produce water that is categorically better than distillation. Long explanation follows: To explain, I need to describe the differences between the two general classes of RO systems...Which I characterize as Passive and Active. The typical home RO system runs at water line pressure, typically no more than 60 psi, and the permeate fills a pressurized accumulator. As the accumulater fills with water, the permeate side pressure rises, and the Delta-P across the membrane decreases. Because there is no active pressure source maintaining a certain positive pressure, I classify this type of system as Passive. These systems have generally low recovery (the ratio of permeate to feedwater), typically less than 50%. 25% or less isn't uncommon, meaning at a 25% water-to-water recovery, it takes 20 gallons of feedwater to produce 5 gallons of permeate. The low recovery isn't due to the pressure, but rather because you have no pump to recycle the water. Recovery is independent of pressure (to dispel a common misconception). A "typical" Active RO system uses a positive displacement pump (in smaller systems, it's usually a vane pump similar to a carbonator pump) to pressurize the membrane feedwater. These run at high pressures, up to 250 psi on the inlet side of the membrane, and the permeate is usually at atmospheric pressure. The pressure is constant, and optimized for the membrane polymer and configuration. The recovery on this type of system is limited by the quality and ionic content of the feedwater. One "selects" a recovery so as to keep the retentate ion concentration low enough that no precipitation occurs in the membrane. With proper pre-treatment, and depending on the ions involved, recoveries of 75% or better are possible (meaning it takes 7.5 gallons of feedwater to make 5 gallons of permeate). You "select" a recovery by adjusting the ratio of retentate waste flow and retentate recycle flow. This means the retentate (aka: concentrate or reject) flow is recycled to the suction side of the pump, so that most of the water flow in the membrane is in an endless loop. A percentage of the flow is wasted through a valve to drain. Whatever you set this flow to, compared to the permeate flow, figures into your actual recovery. This _entirely_ depends on the membrane (which might impose certain limits due to compaction), and the impurities in the pretreated feedwater. In any RO system, the permeation rate of ionic contaminants is essentially constant, regardless of the system pressure. What that means is that calcium, sulfate, carbonate, chloride, etc. are passing through the membrane, each at a rate that's proportional to their ozmotic pressure, which is related to the ion's size and charge, and the concentration on the permeate side. Water, which is slightly polar, passes much more readily than an ion. If we increase the pressure, the flow of water increases, but the flow rate of ions _does not change_. This is important, because a passive RO system operating at an average pressure well below 50 psi is not going to produce water anywhere near as low as the conductivity of an active RO system operating at more than 5 times that pressure. My experience (speaking as one who used to be in the business of designing and building ultra high purity systems) is that a typical "home" RO system produces water around 70-100 microSiemens. A well designed active RO system should produce water at about 10 microSiemens (or about 0.1 megaOhm/cm) or better. This water approaches the quality of water produced by a good distillation unit. Home RO doesn't even come close. Now, it's important to realize that some water systems--especially ones on wells or old municipal distribution systems--might have impurities that are problematic for brewing. If so, and assuming other treatment options aren't feasible, then active or inactive RO treatment is probably necessary. Manganese green sand can effectively remove iron, activated carbon can remove chlorine (though it introduces bacterial contamination as a side effect), and so on. Water with very low alkalinity, will need acidification, I suppose. Certainly to duplicate certain styles you might need to adjust the brewing water. But in my mind, it's remains to be seen whether a home RO system can produce water of that quality. Home RO systems produce decent drinkable water, but it's not all that extraordinarily pure. Lots of municipal water systems deliver water of that ionic quality, some are even better. Yes, RO systems waste water, and a "home" RO system wastes more than a good one does. But since every glass or two of the resulting beer eventually results in a toilet flushing somewhere, I don't think it's much of an issue. ;^) By the way, personally, I neither treat my water (Puget Sound water is pretty decent by itself, and I think it makes excellent beer by itself), nor do I generally bother with adjusting the mineral content to match a specific style...but then my wall isn't littered with ribbons and gold medals, either! ;^) Regards, Mike Sharp Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:17:32 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re dry yeaat Helomech says ... >Actually DRY YEAST is just fine for brewing certain beers. >You just need the right one, and to make a starter with it. To the contrary - dry yeasts are the only ones where you can bypass the starter and pitch after rehydrating. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:21:20 -0800 From: BrewingTechniques <brewtech at earthlink.net> Subject: Update from BrewingTechniques I just wanted to update the online community about status of BrewingTechniques back issue shipments. All back issue orders to confirmed past subscribers were shipped out from Eugene, Oregon, on or before December 23. I apologize for the delay. The issues were ready to go in August, but Consumer's Edge Network, whom I had contracted to handle back issues, failed to follow through. I took things over personally in November, and with the help of my son got them out as quickly as I was able. Important: If you are a past subscriber and have an unsatisfied claim, please contact me directly at brewtech at earthlink.net. I have the full database and can search all records and resolve any questions. If you have received confirmation from me by email and have not yet received your issues, please give it another week. If they still haven't arrived by next week, please contact me at brewtech at earthlink.net. I suspended the processing of paid orders (did not collect funds) until I could satisfy the "make-good" obligations. Now that these obligations have been satisfied, I am resuming the processing of back issue orders (archive and ordering information at http://brewingtechniques.com). If you placed an order and have not yet heard from me, please re-contact me about that now, either directly or through the web site. All proceeds of all sales go directly to the honorable dissolution of BrewingTechniques' remaining affairs. I want to thank the brewing community for its ongoing support, especially the many individuals who have written to register their appreciation of BT and to express personal encouragement. I really appreciate that. Cheers, Stephen Mallery BrewingTechniques http://brewingtechniques.com brewtech at earthlink.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:45:47 -0800 From: "Brian Schar" <schar at cardica.com> Subject: Mash tun for 10 gallon batches I am a long-time extract and partial-mash brewer. I invested in a 15-gallon brewpot and outdoor cooker about a year ago when I moved to a rental unit with a crummy electric stove that wasn't powerful enough to get 3 gallons of wort boiling. I would like to step up and start making some good all-grain beer. My problem is that I'm not sure what to use for a mash tun. The consensus on HBD seems to be that the 10-gallon Gott coolers are the thing to use for all-grain brewing. However, I'm not going to be able to fit enough grain in one of those for a 10-gallon batch of beer. From what I hear, the Gott coolers hold anywhere from 17-25 pounds of grain--not enough grain for any but the lightest beer styles. Ideally, I'd like to be able to get some kind of cooler, screw in the Zymico fitting and Bazooka ( to avoid messing with the false bottom), and mash. Any recommendations? Or should I resign myself to continuing to partial mash, but with less extract and more grain? Brian Schar Belmont, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:43:53 -0800 From: jakem1 at ix.netcom.com Subject: Coconut Cup Howdy from the members of M.A.S.H. in chilly Miami! Just a reminder that it is almost time for this year's (and 6th annual) Coconut Cup homebrew competition. Along with opening up the contest to all BJCP categories, we will also be again doing our special COCONUT BREW category. Judging will be on Feb. 1 & 2. If you're interested, and we're hoping you are, check for details, entry forms, bottle labels, and guidelines at: http://hbd.org/mash/cococup.htm. If you're in the area-or want to be-we can always use more judges. Need help or information? Contact me at jakem1 at ix.netcom.com. Brrr, Jake Miller, Competition Organizer Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:55:40 -0600 From: "Helomech" <Helomech at neb.rr.com> Subject: Re: re dry yeaat - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> To: <Helomech at neb.rr.com> Cc: "Posting Address Only - No Requests" <homebrew at hbd.org> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:17 PM Subject: re dry yeaat > Helomech says ... > > >Actually DRY YEAST is just fine for brewing certain beers. > >You just need the right one, and to make a starter with it. > > To the contrary - dry yeasts are the only ones where you can bypass the > starter and pitch after rehydrating. --------------------------------------------------------------- Yes you sure can, but if you rehydrate it and add some cooled sterile wort a few hours before you need to pitch it, you start with a bigger batch of cells and get a swifter / better fermentation (in my opinion). You can also just sprinkle dry yeast on top of your wort and wait 3 days for it to start a decent fermentation (such as the instructions that come with garbage beer kits, like Mr. Beer). It's all about better beer, dry yeast works well and costs lees for many recipes, I also use prepared slants and smack packs for other recipes. By the way, next time you want to answer something I post - do it in the group. That way the discussion gets carried to where it can do the most good - other brewers. Helomech Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:35:13 -0600 From: "Kenneth Peters" <kpeters6 at cox.net> Subject: Beer Consulting revisited Gee, what a great resource this is! I have received numerous private emails discussing my post of 5 Jan proposing that someone (or some business) provide beer consulting services to home brewers. Several very generous folks even offered to help me out if I would send them my problem brew. The response greatly exceeded my expectations. Thanks to all. I did receive an email from an individual who has been considering doing this very thing. He is a brewer trained in the UK in the 70's and now teaches Fermentation Science at a Texas University, operates a consulting firm aimed at commercial breweries and has been active in the home brewing arena for many years. Here is a partial quote of what he proposes to offer: "Since this topic has come up several times, I am thinking of offering the taste panel service again for $ 10 for home brewers. I have a panel of trained tasters and I am a National BJCP judge so this is the real thing. What do you think------- " I really have no idea of how many others might use such a service, but I would be interested. I wonder what the national interest would be? Thanks again, Ken Peters Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/07/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96