Podcast Topics!

[Finn_Berger]

What about limit dextrinase? That’s a nice little tool lying there which I think may be used to increase fermentability. The problem is that you need to have a fairly low temperature - below 62,5 C i think - combined with a pH down towards 5,0.

Is the following practicable: Mash in at 65, securing good gelatinization of the starch, at a fairly high pH like 5,6 to make the alpha-amylase happy. Hold it there for 10 minutes (or maybe longer, maybe for an hour?), and you’ll have made a lot of limit dextrins for the limit dextrinase to chop up. Then add a little cold water to lower the temperature along with some acid, and the limit dextrinase will get activated. (It is protected fram denaturing at 65C by having an inhibitor molecule attached, which will let go at lower temperatures.)

I may have missed some vital piece of information which makes this a bad idea - that happens:) - but if not; why not use it? And if it works, how much more attenuation might you achieve?

Of course I have tried this a little, and I think it has some effect. But it would be nice to have others test it, too. Or maybe it has been tried?

edit: I’m mashing a test now, a 25 litres batch of German pilsner. I’ve got fairly hard water, and mashed in at 65C/150F without using any acid, just the salts. That made the pH almost 6,0. I lowered it a bit, and then, after 20 minutes, added 1,5 litres of cold water (to reach 23,5), to get down towards 60C.
I then started adding acid, and it took a surprising lot of it to get down under 5,2.

I’ll hold it here for half an hour, and then go up to 72C, but I won’t adjust the pH up. The main goal of the 72 step is to get glycoproteins, not to extract max dextrins - which does nothing for the beer anyway.

The effect - if any -  will take a couple of weeks to manifest itself…

This was rather cumbersome:). I’ve got a solid routine for making pilsners, and normally brewing is quite un-stressful. But this stressed me quite a bit. But I guess that once I’ve nailed down the necessary quantities etc., it’ll be fairly easy. All it takes is, after all, adding some cold water and the acid.

By the way - if you should wonder - I’m batch sparging, good ol’ Denny-style. Beats any other way:)!

[Finn_Berger]

I’ve got a couple of questions about the SNS starter - which I sometimes use and sometimes not. I have not put my stirplate nor my oxy-kit into retirement, so it’s the same with them: I sometimes use them, and I sometimes do not. An alternative to the SNS that I also use, is the one Colin Kaminski advocates; spin a starter for a few hours on the stirplate just prior to pitching. It will get all the oxygen it needs, and it’s up on it’s toes and ready to start fermenting the wort after a very short time. It seems to work very well.

But about the SNS: Has anyone measured how much oxygen you can shake into it? I’m not sure that’s very important, though, because the yeast’s need for oxygen is said to be a minimum of 8 ppm in the full volume of the wort, and you have no chance of getting anywhere near that total oxygen mass when you shake air into one litre - no matter how much money you imagine that liter owes you :).

I just can’t see that the yeast is supplied with enough oxygen to build sufficient stores of sterols, and that means that it will not be able to multiply efficiently. As far as I know it can not, with full stores, go through more than three generations, so the maximum would be 8 times the original number of cells. But in practice you never get that much. 3 to 4 times is normal. You may argue that that is because that’s all that is needed, but if that was so, underpitching would never be a problem as long as you just pitch yeast with full stores of sterols. And underpitching is a real problem.

The theory behind the SNS claims you don’t need all that much yeast, because the yeast you get from the SNS is both healthy and active, and so it can just take the extra 90 minutes that it takes to produce an extra generation. But that presupposes that the SNS in some way has managed to make yeast that behaves differently from all other yeast.

Now there are many strange thigs happening in this world, and I don’t believe in denying facts that I don’t understand how can be, just because I don’t understand them. But i do want to understand :).

I can think of a couple of ways to explain why the SNS works, but they do not explain why it always works - and I think that is what is claimed? First: It will work if the yeast you’re using already has good stores of sterols, and you’re not seriously underpitching. (That’s when I will use it.) Second: It will work if you’re including at least a part of the trub from the kettle in the fermentor. That should add fatty acids in the same way as adding olive oil will do - and that works.

I’m not trying to say the SNS isn’t a real thing. I just can’t understand how the theory behind it can be right:). But then there has been several instances up through my 71 years of existence of me being wrong, so … 

[denny]

@Finn_Berger

I’ve got a couple of questions about the SNS starter - which I sometimes use and sometimes not. I have not put my stirplate nor my oxy-kit into retirement, so it’s the same with them: I sometimes use them, and I sometimes do not. An alternative to the SNS that I also use, is the one Colin Kaminski advocates; spin a starter for a few hours on the stirplate just prior to pitching. It will get all the oxygen it needs, and it’s up on it’s toes and ready to start fermenting the wort after a very short time. It seems to work very well.

But about the SNS: Has anyone measured how much oxygen you can shake into it? I’m not sure that’s very important, though, because the yeast’s need for oxygen is said to be a minimum of 8 ppm in the full volume of the wort, and you have no chance of getting anywhere near that total oxygen mass when you shake air into one litre - no matter how much money you imagine that liter owes you :).

I just can’t see that the yeast is supplied with enough oxygen to build sufficient stores of sterols, and that means that it will not be able to multiply efficiently. As far as I know it can not, with full stores, go through more than three generations, so the maximum would be 8 times the original number of cells. But in practice you never get that much. 3 to 4 times is normal. You may argue that that is because that’s all that is needed, but if that was so, underpitching would never be a problem as long as you just pitch yeast with full stores of sterols. And underpitching is a real problem.

The theory behind the SNS claims you don’t need all that much yeast, because the yeast you get from the SNS is both healthy and active, and so it can just take the extra 90 minutes that it takes to produce an extra generation. But that presupposes that the SNS in some way has managed to make yeast that behaves differently from all other yeast.

Now there are many strange thigs happening in this world, and I don’t believe in denying facts that I don’t understand how can be, just because I don’t understand them. But i do want to understand :).

I can think of a couple of ways to explain why the SNS works, but they do not explain why it always works - and I think that is what is claimed? First: It will work if the yeast you’re using already has good stores of sterols, and you’re not seriously underpitching. (That’s when I will use it.) Second: It will work if you’re including at least a part of the trub from the kettle in the fermentor. That should add fatty acids in the same way as adding olive oil will do - and that works.

I’m not trying to say the SNS isn’t a real thing. I just can’t understand how the theory behind it can be right:). But then there has been several instances up through my 71 years of existence of me being wrong, so … 

Reality often astonishes theory

[ynotbrusum]

Indeed, my experience is that it works tremendously well.  Just sayin’….

[Finn_Berger]

@denny

@Finn_Berger

I’ve got a couple of questions about the SNS starter - which I sometimes use and sometimes not. I have not put my stirplate nor my oxy-kit into retirement, so it’s the same with them: I sometimes use them, and I sometimes do not. An alternative to the SNS that I also use, is the one Colin Kaminski advocates; spin a starter for a few hours on the stirplate just prior to pitching. It will get all the oxygen it needs, and it’s up on it’s toes and ready to start fermenting the wort after a very short time. It seems to work very well.

But about the SNS: Has anyone measured how much oxygen you can shake into it? I’m not sure that’s very important, though, because the yeast’s need for oxygen is said to be a minimum of 8 ppm in the full volume of the wort, and you have no chance of getting anywhere near that total oxygen mass when you shake air into one litre - no matter how much money you imagine that liter owes you :).

I just can’t see that the yeast is supplied with enough oxygen to build sufficient stores of sterols, and that means that it will not be able to multiply efficiently. As far as I know it can not, with full stores, go through more than three generations, so the maximum would be 8 times the original number of cells. But in practice you never get that much. 3 to 4 times is normal. You may argue that that is because that’s all that is needed, but if that was so, underpitching would never be a problem as long as you just pitch yeast with full stores of sterols. And underpitching is a real problem.

The theory behind the SNS claims you don’t need all that much yeast, because the yeast you get from the SNS is both healthy and active, and so it can just take the extra 90 minutes that it takes to produce an extra generation. But that presupposes that the SNS in some way has managed to make yeast that behaves differently from all other yeast.

Now there are many strange thigs happening in this world, and I don’t believe in denying facts that I don’t understand how can be, just because I don’t understand them. But i do want to understand :).

I can think of a couple of ways to explain why the SNS works, but they do not explain why it always works - and I think that is what is claimed? First: It will work if the yeast you’re using already has good stores of sterols, and you’re not seriously underpitching. (That’s when I will use it.) Second: It will work if you’re including at least a part of the trub from the kettle in the fermentor. That should add fatty acids in the same way as adding olive oil will do - and that works.

I’m not trying to say the SNS isn’t a real thing. I just can’t understand how the theory behind it can be right:). But then there has been several instances up through my 71 years of existence of me being wrong, so … 

Reality often astonishes theory

That’s how theories are forced to be improved - or how one’s understanding of theory is improved. I’m really after having the latter happen to me.

I can’t be the only one who have wondered about the theory behind the SNS, but I have never seen any real discussion about it - but then I haven’t seen all discussions about yeast on the net. So if a good explanation of how this bumble bee can fly after all, can be found, I’d be very happy to have a link to it.

To me this is a rather serious matter. Theoretical understanding has really helped me improve my beer a lot - or so I like to think - and understanding yeast and fermentation is the most important part of it. It’s a tool I’m depending on, and when it tells me the bumble bee can’t fly, I really feel a strong need to know what’s wrong. Because something must be wrong. Either it’s my understanding of theory, or the bumble bee isn’t really flying.

I have no background in the hard sciences, and I really feel I should have had that. I’ve earned my living teaching soft sciences; history, litterature, philosophy, lingvistics. Those are all about trying to understand, and it involves some knowledge about the theory of science - which has been of some help, after all.

I’m retired, 71 years old, and I’ve been brewing (a lot) for 10 years. It has actually been quite an educational trip into new corners of knowledge. I’ve seen how knowledge changes fast, and I’ve been forced to kill some babies on the way. That was of course something I had a theoretical understanding of before, but now I was relating to theories that had a very direct bearing on a practice that was important to me. Because, dammit, I needed to brew better beer. And I did brew better beer. Not to brag, but I’ve won the light lager class in the Norwegian Championship the last two years, last year double, this year triple. But I still want to brew better beer. (I don’t trust those judges :).)

So basically that’s why I want answers to my questions: I want to brew better beer. And I’m fully prepared to kill all the babies it takes to get to that beer.

[fredthecat]

@Finn_Berger

@denny

@Finn_Berger

I’ve got a couple of questions about the SNS starter - which I sometimes use and sometimes not. I have not put my stirplate nor my oxy-kit into retirement, so it’s the same with them: I sometimes use them, and I sometimes do not. An alternative to the SNS that I also use, is the one Colin Kaminski advocates; spin a starter for a few hours on the stirplate just prior to pitching. It will get all the oxygen it needs, and it’s up on it’s toes and ready to start fermenting the wort after a very short time. It seems to work very well.

But about the SNS: Has anyone measured how much oxygen you can shake into it? I’m not sure that’s very important, though, because the yeast’s need for oxygen is said to be a minimum of 8 ppm in the full volume of the wort, and you have no chance of getting anywhere near that total oxygen mass when you shake air into one litre - no matter how much money you imagine that liter owes you :).

I just can’t see that the yeast is supplied with enough oxygen to build sufficient stores of sterols, and that means that it will not be able to multiply efficiently. As far as I know it can not, with full stores, go through more than three generations, so the maximum would be 8 times the original number of cells. But in practice you never get that much. 3 to 4 times is normal. You may argue that that is because that’s all that is needed, but if that was so, underpitching would never be a problem as long as you just pitch yeast with full stores of sterols. And underpitching is a real problem.

The theory behind the SNS claims you don’t need all that much yeast, because the yeast you get from the SNS is both healthy and active, and so it can just take the extra 90 minutes that it takes to produce an extra generation. But that presupposes that the SNS in some way has managed to make yeast that behaves differently from all other yeast.

Now there are many strange thigs happening in this world, and I don’t believe in denying facts that I don’t understand how can be, just because I don’t understand them. But i do want to understand :).

I can think of a couple of ways to explain why the SNS works, but they do not explain why it always works - and I think that is what is claimed? First: It will work if the yeast you’re using already has good stores of sterols, and you’re not seriously underpitching. (That’s when I will use it.) Second: It will work if you’re including at least a part of the trub from the kettle in the fermentor. That should add fatty acids in the same way as adding olive oil will do - and that works.

I’m not trying to say the SNS isn’t a real thing. I just can’t understand how the theory behind it can be right:). But then there has been several instances up through my 71 years of existence of me being wrong, so … 

Reality often astonishes theory

That’s how theories are forced to be improved - or how one’s understanding of theory is improved. I’m really after having the latter happen to me.

I can’t be the only one who have wondered about the theory behind the SNS, but I have never seen any real discussion about it - but then I haven’t seen all discussions about yeast on the net. So if a good explanation of how this bumble bee can fly after all, can be found, I’d be very happy to have a link to it.

To me this is a rather serious matter. Theoretical understanding has really helped me improve my beer a lot - or so I like to think - and understanding yeast and fermentation is the most important part of it. It’s a tool I’m depending on, and when it tells me the bumble bee can’t fly, I really feel a strong need to know what’s wrong. Because something must be wrong. Either it’s my understanding of theory, or the bumble bee isn’t really flying.

I have no background in the hard sciences, and I really feel I should have had that. I’ve earned my living teaching soft sciences; history, litterature, philosophy, lingvistics. Those are all about trying to understand, and it involves some knowledge about the theory of science - which has been of some help, after all.

I’m retired, 71 years old, and I’ve been brewing (a lot) for 10 years. It has actually been quite an educational trip into new corners of knowledge. I’ve seen how knowledge changes fast, and I’ve been forced to kill some babies on the way. That was of course something I had a theoretical understanding of before, but now I was relating to theories that had a very direct bearing on a practice that was important to me. Because, dammit, I needed to brew better beer. And I did brew better beer. Not to brag, but I’ve won the light lager class in the Norwegian Championship the last two years, last year double, this year triple. But I still want to brew better beer. (I don’t trust those judges :).)

So basically that’s why I want answers to my questions: I want to brew better beer. And I’m fully prepared to kill all the babies it takes to get to that beer.

okay