Membership questions? Log in issues? Email info@brewersassociation.org

Author Topic: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot  (Read 5619 times)

Offline ynotbrusum

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4881
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2014, 12:23:52 pm »
Interesting, for sure.  It's a wonder the yeast can win the battle as often as they do.  Are those relative rates true as to Brett strains, as well?  I am thinking about when Brett is intentionally under pitched and no Sacc is present.  And are all bacteria in that range (lacto, pedio, e.g.)?  Just trying to guess why a repitch of a mixed culture would roughly be the same result as the original pitch in terms of flavor under that set of parameters.  It certainly argues for a new vial or smack pack when using Roeselare blend.
Hodge Garage Brewing: "Brew with a glad heart!"

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7781
  • Underhill VT
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2014, 12:37:29 pm »
I have no horse in this race. at this point I am just being a little argumentative; your numbers are compelling except that the likely initial cell count on the bacteria front are likely vanishingly small compared to the yeast cell count you are pitching. even with exponential growth in the first 90 minutes how many bacterial cells would you need to introduce to even come close to being a problem? using your numbers below at 90 minutes the bacterial cell count will be ICC*8 so even if you introduced a billion bacterial cells with the hops they would have reproduced into 8 billion by the time your yeast pitch hit the wort (400 billion yeast cells). as soon as that yeast starts cranking the growth rate on the bacteria will begin to drop as the environment turns against them. So another 90 minutes passes now you've got < 64 billion bacteria cells and ~800 billion yeast cells. another 90 minutes and you've got < 512 billion bacteria and 1600 billion yeast. at each iteration the discrepancy between the count of bacterial cells and your projection grows and the bacteria will never catch up.

given that hops are anti-bacterial to some extent anyway I doubt there are that many viable cells present on your hops and while some might survive at < 160 not all of them will.

you have said you do not repitch yeast, you just grow new. You also brew small batches so they don't last too long. I propose that if you did a hop stand at 130 for 20 minutes on the next 1000 batches you would NOT get a single infection from that source.

I appreciate your scientific mind but most homebrewers are not working in lab conditions. there are so many other vectors that are of more concern than adding hops to 'cool' wort it just seems like undue worry to me.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce

Offline HoosierBrew

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Indianapolis,IN
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2014, 12:56:37 pm »

given that hops are anti-bacterial to some extent anyway I doubt there are that many viable cells present on your hops and while some might survive at < 160 not all of them will.

I propose that if you did a hop stand at 130 for 20 minutes on the next 1000 batches you would NOT get a single infection from that source.


That was always my thinking, too. I've never done a hop stand below 165F (yet) but I wouldn't have worries about going below 140F, except to worry that the extraction might fall off as compared to what I get now.
Jon H.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2014, 06:58:08 pm »
Hmm. When I tried to infect a beer, I used a 2L stir starter for the lactobugzillus. Normally my sac yeast starters are done in a day or two. The bug starter had to roll for a week. Then when I pitched it, some of the lacto leadership was worried that my whopping 10 IBUs would be too much for the bugs to handle. But when we talk of non intentional bugging, all those concerns go out the window I guess. One or two little zilluses can sneak in and turn it to a Gueze inspite of the 100 IBUs. Its crazy how they seem to know when they are wanted and unwanted.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #34 on: September 25, 2014, 10:34:51 pm »
I appreciate your scientific mind but most homebrewers are not working in lab conditions. there are so many other vectors that are of more concern than adding hops to 'cool' wort it just seems like undue worry to me.

Bugs do not have to take over a fermentation to taint the flavor of the final product.  We have all had beers that were basically very good except for a weird fermentation-related note in the finish.  The weird fermentation-rated note is often the result of low-level contamination. There are also several strains that have extended lag periods.  Bry 97 is one of these strains.

As I mentioned earlier, pitching a large number of cells is good way to ensure that the yeast culture wins.  However, I almost always underpitch.  I am not pitching anywhere near 400B cells.  I am pitching more like a sixth or a seventh of that rate per five gallons because I want ester production; therefore, I have to pay a lot of attention to sanitation.  I also grow most of my cultures from slant, which means I that I have to be really anal about yeast management.

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7781
  • Underhill VT
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2014, 08:37:35 am »
I appreciate your scientific mind but most homebrewers are not working in lab conditions. there are so many other vectors that are of more concern than adding hops to 'cool' wort it just seems like undue worry to me.

Bugs do not have to take over a fermentation to taint the flavor of the final product.  We have all had beers that were basically very good except for a weird fermentation-related note in the finish.  The weird fermentation-rated note is often the result of low-level contamination. There are also several strains that have extended lag periods.  Bry 97 is one of these strains.

As I mentioned earlier, pitching a large number of cells is good way to ensure that the yeast culture wins.  However, I almost always underpitch.  I am not pitching anywhere near 400B cells.  I am pitching more like a sixth or a seventh of that rate per five gallons because I want ester production; therefore, I have to pay a lot of attention to sanitation.  I also grow most of my cultures from slant, which means I that I have to be really anal about yeast management.

understood.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce