clear slime on beer: help/info needed

[Harold]

........Oh, and about that specific gravity. Refractometers are great for many things, but they are no longer accurate once fermentation starts. Hydrometers are the way to go.

Good Morning junkyard dawg,

Your statement challenged my "gray matter" for it was somewhere in my recent research that I found references touting virtues of the refractometer relative to the hydrometer. It was my research that lead me to purchase several different refractometer in addition to my various hydrometers. So I went on the hunt and found my source. On page 78 of Making Pure Corn Whiskey, paragraph 4 it states, "The main advantages of using the refractometer are: it only requires very small samples; the sample does not require temperature correction; and, the measurement is not affected by the presence of mash solids suspended in the sample".

Citing the same book, page 79, paragraph 6 (bottom of the page) it states, "The Terminating Gravity can be easily measured with a refractometer, but cannot be accurately measured with a hydrometer until the fermentation is completely finished. This is because it is almost impossible to collect a clear sample of the mash that's devoid of mash solids until then."

Harold

[junkyard dawg]

The first paragraph is mostly correct, but the second leaves out a little bit of important information. Temperature does matter with a refractometer. Many do have automatic temp correction.


A refractometer is excellent for determining brix before fermentation. Alcohol will cause changes in the reading tho. If I remember correctly, the error caused by alcohol has a nearly linear relationship to the %alcohol. Meaning that you can get a reasonable guesstimate if you work out some corrections. I believe I read this on a wine forum...

In any case, its important to note that the reading of a refractometer is not accurate with the presence of alcohol.

but cannot be accurately measured with a hydrometer until the fermentation is completely finished. This is because it is almost impossible to collect a clear sample of the mash that's devoid of mash solids until then."

well, terminal gravity cannot be accurately measured with anything until the fermentation is completely finished. Getting a reasonably accurate picture of the gravity at any point during the fermentation is not that hard with a hydrometer. I don't agree with the author on that point.

Good luck

[Dnderhead]

using a either during fermentation is to look for change..not accuracy.one place this is handy is if you thank you have a "stalled" ferment. in this case you take a reading then a day? latter take another ,if there is a difference then it is working if not then its not. the only advantage a refractometer has is a smaller sample is used.as neither is acetate with any thing other than water/sugar,,,water/alcohol..

a refractometer,works by light passing threw the fluid.so anything that blocks the light ,or changes the light can have a effect on reading..

a hydrometer,goes by weight of the fluid.so anything that affects the weight has a effect on reading.
either can be adjusted for these differences but it is beyond what most willing to do.

[Harold]

The first paragraph is mostly correct, but the second leaves out a little bit of important information. Temperature does matter with a refractometer. Many do have automatic temp correction.


In any case, its important to note that the reading of a refractometer is not accurate with the presence of alcohol. "

My refractometers (one is for measuring %alcohol and the other is specifically for determining % sucrose) have ATC (automatic temp correction). If refractometers are not accurate with the presence of alcohol then why is my latest refractometers sold for the purpose of measuring %alcohol?

Harold

[junkyard dawg]

I'm not familiar with any refractometers made for measuring %etoh.

If you want to read about this issue, I recommend winepress.us

If you search the forum with the word refractometer you will find more than you ever wanted to know.

edited to add

stpats.com sells tons of wine equipment. Check out their refractometer and it clearly states that it cannot be used once fermentation has started.

I don't know how far off the readings will be, It may be close enough, but its important to know that it is not 100% accurate.

[junkyard dawg]

+1 on what dnderhead wrote. They are both useful for monitoring changes.

[blind drunk]

I'm a little cornfused 'cause I though I read that a refractometer can be used to measure the alcohol percentage even after a liqueur has been sweetened, or what have you. Not just with pure unadulterated alcohol. Seems like conflicting thoughts.

[junkyard dawg]

I went looking for an alcohol specific refractometer.

found http://www.industrial-needs.com/technic ... CE-ALK.htm

Not sure if thats appropriate for a mash. It should not be used in liquids containing sugar or pigments... It doesn't mention slime tho...

So it seems a brix refractometer is not accurate in the presence of alcohol and an alcohol refractometer is not accurate in the presence of sugar...

Learning more all the time...

[Harold]

A refractometer measures the refractive index of liquids. What it does is determine how much a liquid bends light that passes through a specific thickness of a liquid sample. It cannot identify the liquid and it makes no difference whether the refractive index is a result of dissolved solids in a liquid or a native property of the chemical as a liquid.

You must know in advance what the liquid is and what is dissolved in it. If you know that then the refractometer measurement can be used to determine specific gravity and any other propertys that is directly related to refractive index. The refractive index of a liquid with material dissolved in it is a direct measure of specific gravity.

As I said, the device can't tell you what you put in it. You need to know that in advance. Alcohol in water gives a known quantity, the SG of water. The unknown is the alcohol and you will need to know what kind.

If you know what type then you need to know the SG of that type and apply a conversion factor.

The conversion factor is simply the difference between the SG of whatever the refractometer is calibrated for (sugar syrup or alcohol or …..) and whatever you are measuring. There are plenty of tables available for the SG for a wide range of liquids.

Whatever scale it may be calibrated for it can be easily converted to any other. It's no different than a metric ruler vs imperial. It is a matter of convenience.

A refractometer can be easily calibrated for ETOH or methanol or any number of alcohols. I purchased my alcohol refractometer through my medical supply vendor. All refractometers are basically all the same ....... it's the scale etched on the slide and pre-calibration that makes each each measuring instrument different. Simply change the scale and you have a refractometer for measuring a different liquid.

Harold

[Harold]

My buddy and I did not cook last night. Rather, at 1830 hrs we pitched 5 packets of EC 1118 yeast into the barrel of slime and watched the mash explode into a furious roll. A serious audible sound was realized as if frying taters. Sizzle, sizzle, sizzle.

As previously stated, nothing has stunk and nothing was stinking last night; nothing has tasted bad and nothing was tasting bad last night (the slime tasted sweet). We reasoned, rightfully so or not, that for all practical purposes fermentation had stalled and the slime was sugar syrup.

At 0400 hrs this morning I checked the beer. It was working quite heavily ….. more than ever before. Viscosity of slime and quantity of slime had significantly diminished.

At 1830 hrs this evening I inspected the beer. It was still rolling quite heavily but much of the audible sound was absent. The slime IS GONE. I stirred the mash for several minutes and the sizzle returned. Still NO SLIME presented even when reaching deep into the barrel and stirring violently. The smell of alcohol is strong. Small bubbles are breaking all over the surface of the soup.

I will check again in several hours and I may agitate the soup at least one more time before going to bed. For the first time in 8 days I have been able to obtain a pH. I am convinced that the slime prevented me, on previous attempts, from getting an accurate pH measurement. The measurement, a few minutes ago, was pH 4. I do not have a meter so I have been using pH strips of paper. My water, prior to mashing was pH 7.0.

There will be another inspection in the morning at 0430 hrs and I may pitch yet another packet of EC 1118 before I leave for duty.

Junkyard dawg: I’m glad you took the initiative to research alcohol refractometers. It’s good to challenge other individuals; we learn much this way. It's even better to state that learning has occurred . I almost purchased the very refractometer you found on the web but I believe my medical grade is likely to be a little more accurate . I’ve used refractometers off and on for years. Before I became a doctor I worked as a hospital lab technician and we used various refractometers for all sorts of things from measuring urine SG, protein, or even sugar in urine to specific gravity of serum in packed blood. Heck, we even used a refractometer to determine the proper density of self-concocted liquids that were to be mixed with feces to float parasite eggs. Aside from being a doctor I am a Tool & Die maker and I own my own Tool & Die business. In my shop, I use a refractometer for yet another reason and that's to measure the densities of my coolants which are used to reduce heat when turning metals on the lathes or reduce wear and heat on my cutters when cutting on my milling machines. Interestingly, our coolants are usually very milky (nearly opaque) and far less translucent than mash. Still, light will pass through the milky particulate and provide us with all the accuracy we need to ensure the densities of our coolants are sufficient. There are a plethora of needs for refractometers and they are not exclusive to beer, wine and spirits.

Harold

[blind drunk]

So, can a refractometer measure the alcohol content of a mixed liqueur? Or the abv of a distillate after a maceration is complete and the fruit has been removed?

[Harold]

So, can a refractometer measure the alcohol content of a mixed liqueur? Or the abv of a distillate after a maceration is complete and the fruit has been removed?

Good Morning Blind Drunk,

To answer the first part of your question, “Can a refractometer measure the alcohol content of a mixed liqueur?”, I am going out on a limb and answer, “In the strictest of sense, no”. Keep in mind that I am not a physicist. My doctorate resides in a different discipline though my discipline is grounded in science. The following is “my take on a refractometer.

The very basic function of a refractometer is to measure light that is being bent. There must be a known *standard* around which refractometers are designed and that *standard* (for the most part) is water. More specifically it is *distilled water*. We are taught that distilled water has a Specific Gravity of 7.0. We are also taught that in the most basic sense, distilled water is *pure* and has no dissolved solids. Therefore, when a refractometer is fabricated, the scale on the slide is based on distilled water. The manufacturer may laser-etch the word alcohol or sugar or protein or …… but the beginning line is based on distilled water. For this reason a sample of distilled water is ordinarily supplied with the refractometer for calibration purposes. There is an adjustment screw on the refractometer that is used to “zero” the refractometer.

When a substance becomes dissolved in water, the density of the sample changes from a SG of 7.0 to a numerical value above standard because light is bent differently than for pure water.

I use the following statement to support my answer, “In the strictest of sense, no”. For the reading of a refractometer to be “accurate”, a comparison must be made between two and only two substances:
1. A known substance (distilled water) the value of which is known
2. A known dissolved substance the value of which is unknown

There cannot be a third or fourth or fifth dissolved substance for if this happens, the refractometer cannot segregate and then differentiate the dissolved substances thus the reading becomes a relative reading and not a true, accurate reading. In our case it will become a *relative reading* between Originating Specific Gravity and Terminating Specific Gravity because there is more than one dissolved solid.

When alcohol is distilled, in theory it is purified up to the point it becomes an azeotrope. In actuality the distillate isn’t pure and will never become pure with the process we use because we know that various volatile substances and water are incorporated into the distillate. So when we measure SG or %abv, very little of these dissolved substances remain thus for the most part we “blink”, call it “pure”, and measure with refractometer.

Now, answering your first question in a different way, “Yes the refractometer can measure alcohol content of a mixed liqueur” because, no matter how you cut it, measurement by a refractometer is strictly based on SG and the SG of a mixed liqueur is different from a refractometer that has been standardized using distilled water. So yes it can measure *alcohol* but it has no ability to discriminate and in the purest of sense, accuracy is lost.

Keep in mind that a refractometer is based on a known *dissolved* solid in a known liquid and particles floating around in this liquid are NOT dissolved and will not affect the refractometer’s measurement as it would if using a hydrometer. In this case, the term “dissolved” describes water molecules finding and taking up residence in the intermolecular space between alcohol molecules or if the molecular size of the dissolved substance is smaller than the intermolecular space between water molecules then the dissolved substance will find residence in space between water molecules.

The second part of your question, up to a point, may have been answered above when briefly mentioning distillate. Maceration, however, may be an all together different issue because I take this to describe “break down” of big pieces into smaller pieces, e.g., gelatinization of corn starch. Maceration, in my way of thinking, does not count as something that has *dissolved* in water. I don’t see maceration as a means of breaking something down to individual molecules and making this “substance” miscible in water. I envision maceration as making a substance, that’s comprised of countless substances, into the same substance composition but only smaller. That’s only my take and perhaps, somewhere within may reside a portion of exactness.

Harold

[junkyard dawg]

I enjoy reading your posts Harold. Thanks for taking the time to write them.

So what is the conclusion to the accuracy question? It still seems to me that the alcohol RF will be affected by the sugars and solids in the mash. And the Brix RF is affected by the alcohol.

It may be 'close enough'. I'd be curious to see some comparisons between refractometers and hydrometers at different points during a ferment.

[Harold]

I enjoy reading your posts Harold. Thanks for taking the time to write them.

So what is the conclusion to the accuracy question? It still seems to me that the alcohol RF will be affected by the sugars and solids in the mash. And the Brix RF is affected by the alcohol.

It may be 'close enough'. I'd be curious to see some comparisons between refractometers and hydrometers at different points during a ferment.

Just a quick reply and then "off to work I go". I really believe that accuracy is a function of purity when referencing a refractometer or even the hydrometer. *If* you can obtain a sample that is *ONLY* alcohol and water (by alcohol I mean ETHO and no additional alcohols such as methanol, butanol, polyethylene glycol,etc) then accuracy will be realized. Of course the refractometer is no GC Analyzer nor Mass Spec but it is an accurate instrument that requires only a SMALL sample. The same sampling accuracy must be applied to the hydrometer. The differences I see between the two are:

1. The hydrometer requires temperature conversion if not at standard temp for the hydrometer where as a refractometer with ATC does not require temp conversion
2. Sample size is far greater for the hydrometer than refractometer. In certain situations, this can make a significant difference especially when watching the thermometer on the column and taking multiple samples at the worm when liquids begin to flow.
3. Particulate in the sample for the refractometer does not seem to affect accuracy as it does with a hydrometer.

When all is said and done, neither instrument is worth a crap if standard of purity is not maintained. I think that only two substances in a sample, is a requirement for accuracy using either instrument. If you measure Heads for *alcohol content* using a hydrometer, which ingredient are you measuring, ethanol, methanol, acetone, perhaps an aldehyde? See my point? There is so much smear that neither the hydrometer nor refractometer can differentiate and *measure* each ingredient yet all combined ingredients WILL affect SG which can translate to %abv. Now we have an accuracy problem.

Harold

[Harold]

I’ve arrived at work and have a minute to spare. I believe there is a point that extraneous dissolved solids will be so slight that their presence will have no measurable effect on SG when attempting to obtain either Brix or %abv measurements using a refractometer or hydrometer. Conversely, there must be a point that extraneous dissolved solids will have an adverse effect on measurements using either instrument.

Junkyard dawg, your point is well made when you question the “accuracy” of the refractometer BECAUSE we know that an accurate measurement is a function of having only a known liquid and an unknown quantity of known dissolved solid in the liquid with which a comparison can be made. As you stated, if alcohol is present but you desire to measure sugar content then a wild-card had been tossed into the arena.

But can’t we just as easily question the accuracy of a hydrometer BECAUSE its ability to provide a numerical value depends on how high or low the hydrometer “rides” in the sample? The denser the water the higher it rides. Stated differently, the more “extraneous solids” that are dissolved in a sample then the greater the density (SG). Who’s to say that when conversion occurs that ONLY fructose is present? Don’t we have fructose, glucose, and far more sugars in our clear “witches brew” after conversion? It’s not just one simple sugar in a converted liquid; the liquid is not absent of dissolved protein and numerous other things. Yet we float a hydrometer and “call it all good”. That hydrometer doesn’t care if Ivory Soap is dissolved with all the various sugars. The only thing that hydrometer cares about is if it can float. If I am not badly mistaken, most hydrometers are calibrated using distilled water at 20C. To measure proof or percentage or SG, the liquid in which the hydrometer floats has to be comprised of a known substance with a known value (distalled water) and a single, known substance of unknown quanity (ethanol). It can't be floating in sugar, alcohol, protein, and any number of other substances or it will provide and inaccurate reading. Right?

Measurement Comparison Of The Two Instruments:

That which I am about to reveal is by no means a valid, scientific comparison. It is, however, an observation that I personally made while dealing with my “slime”.

My OG was 1.072 and my Brix was 18 (measured by my refractometer. The OG was calculated from the Brix. I also floated my hydrometer and to the best I could determine my SG was ~1.072 after temp conversion.

Several days after I pitched yeast my slime began to manifest quite heavily. I attempted to get a pH but I got 7.0. This was totally inaccurate because my “soup” had begun to have a slightly sour taste. This means that I was “going acidic” but I couldn’t determine by how much. I tried to get a SG and the Brix indicated 16 on my refractometer which translates to SG= 1.064. I floated my hydrometer and the slime was so thick that my hydrometer registered a SG of 1.114. Now how in the world can I begin with a SG of 1.072 (measured with both instruments) and three days later have “grown so much sugar" that my SG=1.114? Stated differently, I didn’t add one single grain of sugar to my soup and my hydrometer indicated that I had added a truck load of sugar.

So, the density (SG) of the soup had increased so much, because of slime, that my hydrometer was inaccurate. When my slime “went away” the reading on my refractometer was around 16 (give or take and this was about what it was when I measured the slime with the refractometer) and my hydrometer floated around 1.060. So I am assuming that my refractometer was actually registering “close to accurate” Brix/SG when my hydrometer was totally fooled by the density of the slime.

This should give you something to mull over.
Harold

[Harold]

Alaskan Slime Project

The last communication on my slime project was 18 FEB 12. Tomorrow makes three (3) weeks from its initiation. The project, at the time of this communication, is still on-going but is soon to end.

1. Around 11 FEB I pitched.
2. Day 6 I noticed a surface slime. Very stringy and resembled slime from whole pods of steamed or pickled okra.
3. After 6 days there was a strong smell of alcohol
a) temp ~82
b) began with SG of 1.072; 6 days later SG = 1.064
4. Somewhere around 20 FEB I made a small run. Slime was still present on surface and slime got much thicker as I approached the bottom of the barrel. After making the run, slime was gone in the cooker, very little alcohol was appreciated (far less than ½ pt.)
5. Liquid in cooker had a sweet taste. It would seem to be obvious that sugar was still present and EC 1118 yeast had not “done their thing”.
6. 23 FEB 12 we pitched five (5) more packets of EC 1118 yeast. Our mash exploded and it began to roll. Worked heavily for several days and then back to the previous …. SNAFU.
7. After pitching 5 packets of EC 1118, surface slime thinned considerably and I could no longer detect slime deep in the barrel.
8. 26 FEB 12: Pitched yet another 5 packets of EC 1118 yeast. Activity increased for about 8 hours then returned to normal EXCEP all slime was gone. Beer still had a sweet taste.
9. Have checked “relative density” off and on since 26 FEB. Very slowly density is decreasing. Beer still taste sweet BUT not as sweet as before.
10. Last night my relative density measured 1.030. If my math is correct and if I correctly measured OG, then I am only realizing 5.67% alc after three weeks of fermentation.
11. As a last ditch effort I mixed up 6 packets of Red Star dry active yeast, added a teaspoon of sugar, and let it set (1 hour) before my wife screamed at me that my yeast was running all over the counter top. Pitched the yeast last night and mixed well but taking caution not to agitate the beer too much. After an hour that was a great deal of foam.
12. Awakened at 0430 hrs this morning (03 MAR 12) . Much foam on surface but beer is not active. Have realized no more slime since pitching the last 5 packets of EC 1118 on 26 FEB. Have taken another relative SG and it’s still 1.030.

My cohort has arrived. We will begin stripping the beer shortly. I will report back as to how everything goes. As a side note, still no bad smell and no bad taste.

Harold

[Harold]

Alaskan Slime Project Update

We began stripping the Alaskan Slime Project around 0930 (03 MAR 12). As previously mentioned, my 15 gallons of beer:

1. became strangely converted to a concentrated slime quite similar to thick slime associated with boiled or pickled okra,

2. slime was clear, thick, odorless, tasteless and this lasted for two weeks,

3. slime had an unusual “property” i.e. being able to string vertically for a distance of 12 to 14 inches before breaking under its own weight and falling back into the barrel,

4. slime easily dissolved in fresh water that was unassociated with the beer,

5. *most* slime almost immediately disappeared when pitching 5 packets of EC 1118 yeast above and beyond that of my initial 3 packets of EC 1118,

6. having initially pitched 3 packets of yeast and one week later pitching 5 more packets of yeast caused me to realizing a significant reduction in slime. An additional 5 packets of yeast were pitched a week after pitching the first 5 packets causing the slime to totally disappeared. I take this as a sign that I had no infection. I would assume that after three weeks of “dinking around” with questionable cause for a thick slime, had this been an infection, we would likely been unable to stand the smell or taste after three weeks.


After three weeks of fermentation and the disappearance of all slime, my beer continued to have a sweet taste with a hint of acidic water. The pH was 4.0. The SG = 1.030. Having become insouciant, I activated and pitched 6 packets of Red Star activated Baker’s Yeast the night before beginning the stripping run. It “fizzed & foamed” throughout the night and into the morning. The smell of alcohol has continued to be quite strong in the fermenting barrel.

The vast majority of beer has undergone a stripping run but fermentation is still on-going in the remaining beer. We stopped for the night (9:20 PM) to allow the remaining beer to settle or “clear” before resuming and finalizing the stripping run tomorrow. There are at least three additional gallons of beer to strip.

Alcohol yield has been phenomenal considering such strange turn of events. To this point we have collected three gallons of low wine and will likely get another gallon tomorrow. Each run produced 2 quarts. The first qt. of each run produced an average of 40% alcohol. The second qt. of each run produced an average of 23% alcohol. Each time, collection ceased at 10%.

Discussion of Project Facts & Oddities

I began this project by mashing 5 lbs of flaked corn and 1 lb of 6 row pale Barley in 3.5 gal of water. Conversion produced a clear yellow liquid having a specific gravity of 1.062 (measured with a refractometer). To this I added 25 lbs of sugar and 11.5 gal of water all of which having a specific gravity of 1.072 (measured with a refractometer). I activated 3 packets of EC 1118 yeast and introduced yeast to my 15 gal of soup. Briefly aerated wort using an aquarium pump and stone. No choir sang and no angles descended from Heaven. Only slight fermentation activity was realized for ~6 days. Original fermentation temp was ~72F and was eventually raised to 82F-84F (vacillated). I encountered thick surface slime on day 6.

On day 7 I decided to stir the soup to see what would happen. Undisturbed slime was recognizably more viscous when nearing the bottom of the barrel. Eventually, slime became greater in abundance and VERY thick near the bottom. Strings of slime would eventually break under its own weight at 12 to 14 inches above the surface. Though very thick, particulate “churning” was visible when inspecting the undisturbed wort using a strong light near the surface. Explosions of very, very tiny bubbles could be seen all over the surface when the light was properly adjusted but no bubbles could be seen rising to the surface from the depths of the “goo”.

Though alcohol production was apparent (smell), I had become unable to monitor any progression using either a refractometer or a hydrometer. Stated differently, I could trust neither reading from either instrument. There were consistent inconsistencies and often great disparity between instrument readings e.g., at one point the refractometer yielded a specific gravity value of 1.060 while the hydrometer provided a SG value of 1.114.

Riddle me this, how can one begin with a SG of 1.072 and 8 days later have a SG of 1.114 (measured with a hydrometer) but have a SG of 1.060 measured with a refractometer yet have a strong presence of alcohol?

Let’s take this even further; how can you have a slime that easily dissolves in water, but segregates itself from water, stratifies on top of water, and its abundance is so great that it causes the hydrometer to float ultra high in the liquid indicating a density far greater than water, yet slime does not sink to the bottom because it is denser than water but instead floats on water which suggest that water is denser than the slime? Well, I just can’t figure that out.

When the slime dissipated, believable measurements returned to Alaska. Using both instruments, TG was measured to be 1.030 by both instruments. Yes, still a HIGH reading suggesting I should allow fermentation to continue another 2 weeks (maybe longer) especially in light of the fact that fermentation is sill active. Regardless, "The show is over and the monkey is dead". We are ready to move on to another batch.

I am pleased with my yield but baffled by nature.

Harold

[cob]

Hello All: snip I've been considering the use of 10% NaOCl as my disinfectant but I am also considering Campden. From what I have read, it's possible to use Campden to disinfect my beer and then re-pitch yeast. Has anyone ever done this?

harold if you have any stainless steel check this out. there is a more involved thread somewhere here but this is the short version
http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 15&t=19776

[junkyard dawg]

I am pleased with my yield but baffled by nature.

sometimes I get the feeling that nature just makes things up as it goes along

I'm confused by the gravity readings... just not sure what to make of that. The slime factor is confusing as well. I plan on doing some reading on the beta glucan issue. I'll let you know if I find anything noteworthy.


Onward!

[Harold]

I am pleased with my yield but baffled by nature.

sometimes I get the feeling that nature just makes things up as it goes along

I'm confused by the gravity readings... just not sure what to make of that. The slime factor is confusing as well. I plan on doing some reading on the beta glucan issue. I'll let you know if I find anything noteworthy.


Onward!

COB: Thanks for providing the link and reminding me that I had asked the queston but had not gotten a response.

JD: A week or so ago, after Rubber Duck mentioned beta-glucan, I did a quick search and found the following:

β-Glucans are polysaccharides that contain only glucose as structural components, and are linked with β-glycosidic bonds. Glycosidic bonds are etheric oxygen bridges which link the monosaccharide units in a polysaccharide, and they are designated by a pair of numbers to indicate which carbons in each of the monosaccharide units are linked (according to the standard numbering for simple monosaccharides).

One of the most common sources of β(1,3)D-glucan for supplement use is derived from the cell wall of baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). However, β(1,3)(1,4)-glucans are also extracted from the bran of some grains such as oats and barley, and to a much lesser degree in rye and wheat. The β(1,3)D-glucans from yeast are often insoluble. Those extracted from grains tend to be both soluble and insoluble. Other sources include some types of seaweed,[2] and various species of mushrooms such as Reishi, Shiitake, and Maitake.

It would seem that the second paragraph just about describes properties of my slime. Can be extracted from barley. B-Glucan from yeast are often insoluble. B-Glucan extracted from grain tend to be both soluble and insoluble (that is really hitting close to home). This could explain stratification and segregation previously mentioned.

Harold

[junkyard dawg]

Interesting stuff.

I'll get some reading done so that I can better discuss the beta glucan side of the "slime machine".

Its all new to me at this point...

coincidentally, a friend and I have been working on making what I call oatmeal rye. It is simple. Equal parts rye, flaked oats and 6 row barley. Sounds like a perfect medium for studying the glucan issue...