From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: esters, banana
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:24:06 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

 
 Article 5040 (10 more) in rec.crafts.brewing:
 From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
 Subject: Re: esters, banana
 
 >Imprimis: no one ever contended that "Wyeast has never had a
 contaminated batch" -- but I in fact responded to your comment that
 "contrary to public opinion contaminated Wyeast supplies are not
 uncommon".  These, as anyone can see, are very different statements.  I
 asked you to please supply some data to substantiate your statement.
 
 Bad choice of words because "not uncommon" is rather flakey term.  However, I 
 will direct you (in private), to a source that was the reason I selected the 
 expression.  You can draw your own conclusion.
 
 >Secundus: As Glenn Tinseth is pointing out, it's in fact very difficult
 to isolate the point of contamination, and blaming it on your yeast
 supply is the easy way out.
 
 It is also just as easy to exonerate the yeast simply on reputation.  
 Difficulty of isolating the contamination works both ways.
 
 >But, in fact, the only way to know for sure that the yeast supply _is_
 the problem is to find contamination in the original supply while
 assuring that the very process of examination hasn't contaminated it.
 
 The homebrewer rarely keeps a control sample of the yeast he pitched if he 
 uses a packet of Wyeast in the usual way.
 
 >Very few homebrewers are in a position to do this.
 
 Oh.
 
 >I am pleased about one thing in this discussion, Jack.  When we first
 started out, back last fall, arguing about the relative virtues of
 yeast, you were adamant that liquid yeast was no better than dry.  Nice
 to know you've come around. :-)
 
 That is not a very accurate representation of the discussion, if for no other 
 reason than, that I changed my views as I learned from the discussion.
 
 My current process and view of the issue is a mixed bag.  I pure culture 
 dried yeast.  How's that for a compromise?
 
 I AM convinced that dried yeast, by the time we get it, is to some extent, 
 always contaminated with something.  It may or may not cause a problem in any 
 given batch or process but pure culturing it is just too simple a process, to 
 leave it to chance.
 
 I am not yet convinced that dried yeast inherently produces beer inferior to 
 liquid yeast if of equal purity.
 
 The real clincher was the posting by someone who cultured Red Star and made 
 three different batches.  The one out of the packet was rotten and the other 
 two fine.  I only need to be struck by lightening twice before I get the 
 picture.
 
 To pre-empt an upcoming article, I had a gusher the other day in a bottle of 
 beer made from EDME, months ago and found in the frige.  It is the first bad 
 experience I have had since switching to EDME but the good news is that the 
 records show it was prior to pure culturing, i.e. right out of the packet.
 
 I will probably never know if the pure culturing eliminates gushing because I 
 no longer bottle beer.
 
 >"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                     --Thomas Jefferson
 
 Sounds like we are in trouble.
 
 js