"...0.825 ppm molecular is required to suppress growth of
Brettanomyces/Dekkera sp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae according to one
study. [Beech et al]..."

I'm pretty sure that this is the one that made me think that the "aseptic"
level should be (was?) increased to 0.83 ppm. Since this is the level
needed to cover "brett", I just automatically jacked up my levels the
first time I read this. Am I confused about this ??

frederick ploegman ) wrote:
>"...0.825 ppm molecular is required to suppress growth of
>Brettanomyces/Dekkera sp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae according to one
>study. [Beech et al]..."

>I'm pretty sure that this is the one that made me think that the "aseptic"
>level should be (was?) increased to 0.83 ppm. Since this is the level
>needed to cover "brett", I just automatically jacked up my levels the
>first time I read this. Am I confused about this ??

Nope, that seems right to me.

The upper end of the aseptic level that I've seen (in Margalit's
books) is 0.8 molecular, so that's pretty close to 0.825.

Brett is a a pain.

Where's the above quote from?

Dave
************************************************** **************************
Dave Breeden

"David C Breeden" > wrote in message
...
> frederick ploegman ) wrote:
> >"...0.825 ppm molecular is required to suppress growth of
> >Brettanomyces/Dekkera sp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae according to one
> >study. [Beech et al]..."
>
> >I'm pretty sure that this is the one that made me think that the
"aseptic"
> >level should be (was?) increased to 0.83 ppm. Since this is the level
> >needed to cover "brett", I just automatically jacked up my levels the
> >first time I read this. Am I confused about this ??
>
> Nope, that seems right to me.
>
> The upper end of the aseptic level that I've seen (in Margalit's
> books) is 0.8 molecular, so that's pretty close to 0.825.
>
> Brett is a a pain.
>
> Where's the above quote from?
>
> Dave

For quote see:
http://members.tripod.com/~BRotter/S...SO2%20and%20pH

References are at the bottom of that page. HTH