Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rcemech

Pages: [1] 2
1
He's gonna carry both, but probably WYeast for ales (it's hands down the more popular brand for ales for some reason) and White labs for lager. Lager seems to be 50/50 to leaning in white labs direction.

White labs also has a new packaging system that is supposed to stay viable up to 50% for 10 - 12 months. I'm basing this on what my buddy told me, and what the white labs rep told him. I haven't looked it up. It has to do with growing the yeast in the packaging so that it never loses it's stores and it 99.9% viable when it ships. Again, don't quote me on that I haven't researched it.

My buddys (the shop owner) problem is that he has a stigma to overcome. He bought the shop from the previous owners and they didn't really cater to brewers, more for wine making. He's revamped it to offer everything. It's now my go to shop since the inventory has been changed and I can get all the malts and yeast (coming) I need now and it's a lot closer to home.

2
Rcemech, has he considered contacting the yeast labs to see what they recommend, and what their best selling yeasts are?

I would hope so, but the shops purchase yeasts from the manufacturer and that doesn't necessarily directly correlate to what the homebrewers are using most frequently. He was asking around though so I thought I'd help him out.

3
Hi all! I'm trying to help out my buddy who owns a homebrew shop. He wants to carry liquid yeasts and he'd like to know what yeasts to make sure he has on hand. So if you would, just jot down what your favorite liquid yeasts are that you use most frequently. Separate into ales and lagers please.

For example...

My most frequently used ale yeasts are...

1. 2565
2. 1007
3. 1056
4. 3068
5. 1084
6. 1450
7. 3711
8. 1388
9. 3787

Lager I don't do as many, but they'd be...

1. 2124
2. 830

Thanks in advance. Cheers!


4
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: New starter procedure trial
« on: October 07, 2015, 02:18:04 PM »
Mark, using o2 reduces the need for the extra space, right.

Yes, but pure O2 does not fit the low-cost, low-tech mantra (or what that cheap and easy?). :)

True, but if you got it already it's not costly to use and there are a lot of people that make more than just 5 gal batches. So some sort of scalability would be nice. Figuring if it's linear or not would be very beneficial for one.

5
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: New starter procedure trial
« on: October 06, 2015, 11:30:12 AM »
Morty... on the subject of lager starters. Do them at room temp. Pitch the whole thing. Don't bother decanting it. Last 2 lagers I made were made using that method and I don't think it had any appreciable impact on the beer. I almost never decant my starters and because I've been using yeastcalc they've been huge, as much as 2 gallons in 32 gallons of wort. That's 1/16 of the volume of the beer and even Ken liked the beers I sent him.

I can't brew enough right now to really test this, but I think I'll make some starters, one on a stir plate, and another using this "shake the bejesus" out of it method and then take both to my buddies house when they are at high krausen and look at the yeast under a microscope to do a cell count and maybe a viability check.

Mark, I'm thinking for a large starter, would this method scale linearly? Maybe make a 1.5 gal starter in a carboy for a big batch of beer?

Also, if you use a pure O2 stone and froth up the starter wort like a cappuccino, do you need to shake it still?

6
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: New starter procedure trial
« on: October 05, 2015, 07:30:10 PM »
So what equipment would you need to make a starter for a 1.050 gravity, 15 gal batch?

7
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
« on: September 28, 2015, 06:04:05 PM »
It might be practical for a 5 gallon batch, but using your 4/1 method could become troublesome for a 10 gallon plus batch.

I was referring to continuously stirring a 5-gallon batch with a stirrer and a motor.  I know very few people who would be able to shake 5 gallons of wort that vigorously.

Quote
The rabbit hole has been drilled much deeper here now and it looks like I'm gonna have to cut the belay line.

I am not attempting to make anyone's life more difficult.  In fact, I am attempting to remove a barrier to entry and reduce the complexity of moving to liquid yeast cultures.  So many new brewers today believe that a stir plate, a stir bar, and an Erlenmeyer flask are required to produce a healthy liquid culture that many choose to stick with dry yeast.   A one U.S. gallon glass jug can often be acquired as waste that once held juice or vinegar.  Thirty-eight millimeter polyseal reusable caps can usually be had for less than a dollar each.  It does not get much lower cost than a glass jug that would have more than likely found its way into a landfill and less than a dollar for a reusable cap.  That sure beats $70.00 to $150.00 for a stir plate, a couple of dollars for a stir bar, and another $20.00 to $25.00 for a 2L Erlenmeyer flask.  A process does not get much simpler than shaking.  All one needs to do after inoculating and shaking or shaking and inoculating is to loosen to cap enough that the culture can outgas, and then wait for high krausen to appear.

What would your procedure look like for a 15 gallon batch of <1.060 beer?

Also, by going deeper down the rabbit hole" I am praising your knowledge and you've awoken my desire to go back and learn a lot more about yeast/yeast management. It's a good thing!

8
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
« on: September 28, 2015, 01:56:44 PM »
First and foremost, brewing yeast cells do not need to be stirred to remain in suspension, at least not before high krausen is reached.  Most brewing yeast strains exhibit what is known as NewFlo flocculation (the genes that are responsible for flocculation are known as FLO genes).  NewFlo strains do not flocculate until glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltotriose have reached a genetically set level.   

At this point, the only positive that stir plates bring to the table when propagating brewing yeast strains is degassing of the medium.  However, CO2 build up is not much of a problem when a culture is pitched 12 hours after it is inoculated.

To answer your question, is why would one want to use a stir plate when it basically brings little to the table and risks exposing the cells to continuous shear stress (even a slowly stirred culture undergoes turbulent flow)?  Why not just go with an easier and lower cost method that does not unnecessarily waste resources?  If stir plates are the answer, why do we not stir our batches of beer?  It would be easily to do with a continuous duty motor and a sanitized stainless steel paint stirrer.  A batch of beer would more than likely benefit more from continuous stirring than a culture because stirring would keep the cells in suspension long after glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltotriose levels have fallen below the levels encoded a yeast strain's genetics.

It might be practical for a 5 gallon batch, but using your 4/1 method could become troublesome for a 10 gallon plus batch.

I really appreciate your posts. The rabbit hole has been drilled much deeper here now and it looks like I'm gonna have to cut the belay line.

9
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: New starter procedure trial
« on: September 28, 2015, 01:13:26 PM »
Just a guess here, if you inoculate post shake, might you miss out on some of the surface area contact that is supposed to be one of the benefits?

I'm guessing that pre-shake inoculation means there are yeast cells happily replicating in the foam.

10
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
« on: September 28, 2015, 12:45:11 PM »
Mark, how is this method much different from pitching a gently stirred starter (just enough action to keep the cells in suspension - all things being equal - proper O2 and nutrients) pitched at high krausen?

11
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Phenolic Feedback
« on: August 21, 2015, 08:58:34 AM »
The strength of the solution is very important in how reactive the reagents are. You should always add your cleaners and sanitizers to water, never the other way around.

My hunch is that you get less chlorine gas evolved from solution when making sanitizer with bleach and ammonia in water as you do from letting chlorinated pool water sit out. In other words, don't worry about it, but don't mix them with your face stuck in the bucket.

12
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Phenolic Feedback
« on: August 19, 2015, 10:45:38 AM »
I've been using starsan for years with good luck,

I think you answered your own question. ;)

I know, but I was hoping that there might be some insight into other products or methods worth exploring.

13
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Phenolic Feedback
« on: August 19, 2015, 07:41:04 AM »
S. cerevisiae, could you provide your process for sanitization for your equipment, including the recipe (ratios) for your sanitizer that you mentioned above?

A no-rinse bleach and vinegar-based sanitizer can be made using 1oz of bleach and 1oz of vinegar per 5 gallons of water as long as one's water is not highly buffered into the alkaline range.  I use a 12.5 ppm titratable iodine solution when using BTF Iodophor.  I know that 12.5 ppm titratable iodine sounds incredibly scientific, but directions for 12.5 and 25 ppm are on the bottle.

I am a soaker.   My gear soaks while I am brewing.  That way I can be assured that my gear has had adequate time with the sanitizer to ensure efficacy.  I clean all of my gear immediately after use.

I'm guessing that the chlorine levels from the bleach are small enough, especially after wort is added, that you don't get any off flavors from it?

I have hard water here in FL. Buying enough RO water on a regular basis for this wouldn't be practical.

Any other suggestions? I'm always looking to improve my processes. I've been using starsan for years with good luck, but I'm open to change if it's practical and it improves microbiological stability.

14
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Beer Writer Needs Your Opinion
« on: August 18, 2015, 12:10:22 PM »
Hello AHA members, I am a beer writer working on an assignment for a leading craft beer trade magazine. The title of the article: "Is It "Cheating" to Use Technology to Home Brew?".  The purpose of the article is to compare traditional hose and bucket home brewing to that offered by some of the closed systems, such as Pico Brew's Zymatic or BrewBot. Here are some points to consider in your response.

1 - What's your own experience?

I've never brewed on a system like the Zymatic, but a brew system no matter how fancy is only as good as it's inputs. The real brewing is done between your ears.

2 - If you have not seen a closed system brew, what's your perception?  Are you interested in seeing or trying?

It certainly isn't cheating. It's a trade off and each brewer decides what they want out of their experience. I wouldn't begrudge anyone that used one of the fully automatic systems.

3 - Is trial and error necessary to be a good brewer?

Absolutely. Nothing is better than practice and going through the feedback cycle. The equipment is completely irrelevant in this respect. If you ferment well and have good sanitation you will make beer. Knowing how the malts, hops, yeast, and water interact with each others flavors, aromas, and mouthfeel is really where experience helps. It's impossible to tweak a recipe without using your senses for feedback.The rest of the mechanical process of brewing is easily learned.

4 -  I'm celebrating both viewpoints, so civil comments are the most useful.

Cheers!

Thank you for your time and help.

15
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Phenolic Feedback
« on: August 18, 2015, 09:41:58 AM »
S. cerevisiae, could you provide your process for sanitization for your equipment, including the recipe (ratios) for your sanitizer that you mentioned above?

Pages: [1] 2