Aussiedistiller, Home Distilling, Moonshine, Home Brew

ABSTRACT

168-hour old Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast cells on Petri dishes were exposed to a homogenous static magnetic field of 140 mT for periods of 24, 48 or 72 hours and then used as inoculum for the alcoholic fermentation of Malvasia grape must. The exposure to the magnetic field improved the fermentation process kinetics. Biomass and ethanol yields of fermentations inoculated with treated inoculum were higher than those in the control fermentation, which was inoculated with an untreated inoculum. Treatment of the inoculum with the magnetic field also led to faster consumption of glucose. Higher levels of ethanol, acetaldehyde, 1-propanol, 2-butanol, isoamil alcohol and lactic acid were detected. Faster consumption of tartaric acid was indicated, while no effect was identified in malic acid consumption.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/93818766/influence-treatment-saccharomyces-cerevisiae-inoculum-magnetic-field-subsequent-grape-must-fermentation

.Higher levels of ethanol, acetaldehyde, 1-propanol, 2-butanol, isoamil alcohol and lactic acid were detected.

I'm no expert in yeast but maybe this suggests the yeast were stressed...

might be good for rum :handgestures-thumbupleft:

db1979 wrote:

.Higher levels of ethanol, acetaldehyde, 1-propanol, 2-butanol, isoamil alcohol and lactic acid were detected.

I'm no expert in yeast but maybe this suggests the yeast were stressed...

that may very well be the case, however I personally have no idea what those compounds (besides alcohol) mean in terms of organoleptic profile with wines, of which the paper refers to. The effect of a magnetic field could be useful for those continuously reusing their lees in consecutive batches. This might not mean much to the average stiller making some shine for home consumption but scaled up it could mean quite a cost reduction in yeast.

rum has higher levels of 1-propanol and very high levels of 2-butanol (compared to say scotch). so increasing these would make it more... rummy 8-} , ie heavier and more flavoursome.
not to mention pushing more lactic acid and less consumption of malic acid puts forward the notion that more volitic acids will remaing, or be produced, via this menthod, which will result again in a heavier rum.

Andy wrote:rum has higher levels of 1-propanol and very high levels of 2-butanol (compared to say scotch). so increasing these would make it more... rummy 8-} , ie heavier and more flavoursome.
not to mention pushing more lactic acid and less consumption of malic acid puts forward the notion that more volitic acids will remaing, or be produced, via this menthod, which will result again in a heavier rum.

Interesting, thanks for that Andy. Rum is my main focus at the moment and I'm still learning the seemingly never-ending list of compounds that make up 'rum' as I and the online community knows it. I'm expecting a copy of 'The Distillers Guide to Rum' in the mail pretty soon, hopefully that has some data on what some of the commercial distilleries are doing whose fine rum I've gotten to know over the years.

What I'd love to do is pick a rum and run it through a GC/MS to get a fingerprint of all the constituents and their amounts. It kinda sounds like cheating, and I've come across a few research papers that do exactly that, but I think the data would be invaluable, and fun and challenging to reverse-engineer. I mean there are so many variables along the way that would effect the outcome, and knowing the compounds present doesn't necessarily tell you what they taste like on their own or in particular binary/trinary/etc combinations.. this polydrug we call booze is so fucking complex!

On volitic acids, I couldn't find that term anywhere on the intarwebz. Is it a typo for 'volatile' or 'valeric'? :think:

whops typo sorry. volatile acids
"Acetic acid and the total amount of volatile acids were measured quantitatively. Rum contained the largest amount of volatile acids, 600 mg/L, while one of the brands of Scotch whisky contained the least, 90 mg/L. Acetic acid represented 40–95% of the total amount of volatile acids in the whisky; for cognac and brandy, the value was .50–75%, and for rum 75–90%. The relative amounts have been reported for 21 acids, with acetic acid excluded. Capric, caprylic and lauric acid were the main components in whisky, cognac and brandy. Of the beverages analyzed, rum contained the largest quantity of lower fatty acids, particularly propionic and butyric acid; the main component of Jamaican rum was propionic acid. The main components of the group of long-chain fatty acids were myristic, palmitic and palmitoleic acids. Scotch whisky contained equal amounts of palmitic and palmitoleic acid; palmitoleic acid regularly appeared in smaller amounts in the other beverages"

If it where proven viable science all commercials would be using it given cost pressures...

:text-+1: For stressed yeast comments... I reckon I could get you any result you want on a un even playing field.

bt1

bt1 wrote:If it where proven viable science all commercials would be using it given cost pressures...

however research is very, very.... very, slow to be considered and accepted.
remember Pythagoras proposed a spherical earth in 600BC, about a thousand years later while Aristotle was doing his thing it was being more accepted.
one research article, in a field that is mainly taught by familial trade, is going to take a long time to be implemented.

bt1 wrote:If it where proven viable science all commercials would be using it given cost pressures...
bt1

You're insinuating that because 'all the cool kids' aren't using it then the science is bunk, or not 'proven viable science', this is called a logical fallacy. If you bothered to actually absorb what the abstract is telling you its evident they got improved fermentation from their experiment.

As for following what the commercials do, pfffft.. this is a hobby distillation forum, right? :teasing-neener:

So you found yourself a left field research article and decided to throw it around on a hobby forum hey? kinda contradicts your own logic but never mind. I look forward to hearing the quantified tales of improved results :teasing-blah:

Yeh your right I know stuff all about yeasts so bow to your guru status on the subject :laughing-rolling: :laughing-rolling: :laughing-rolling:

Might want to consider getting the basics of yeast selection, hydration, nutrition right before heading down this path ...you might just find an improved result which would be far more useful to hobby distillers :D

Enough of the bullshit
bt1

Allright let's keep this on topic please, if you two wish to "discuss" this any further I suggest the PM system :handgestures-thumbupleft:

hugely disappointing reply there bt1. he never said you know nothing about yeast, nor did he make it personal, like you have. if you bother to read the article (or try and understand the article), or read rumfiend's experiment to capture wild yeast, i think you would feel foolish and retract your rude comments. some respect, where respect is due, would be nice.

thanks for the article RumFiend. i hope you (or any other memeber) are not discouraged from presenting other research, or contributing to the forum in any other way, because of bt1's ignorant and downright rude reply. a book you might find interesting is "Beverages: Technology, Chemistry and Microbiology." more specifically the chapters on chemistry which discuss the varying levels of the different propanol, butanol, acids etc. is a variety of spirits.

Andy wrote:hugely disappointing reply there bt1. he never said you know nothing about yeast, nor did he make it personal, like you have. if you bother to read the article (or try and understand the article), or read rumfiend's experiment to capture wild yeast, i think you would feel foolish and retract your rude comments. some respect, where respect is due, would be nice.

Well said Andy, the mods & admin totally agree with you on the above points :handgestures-thumbupleft: