FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  A New Journal (Martin Lodahl)
  Irish Ales and other matters (Diane Duane)
  homemade wine (THOMASR)
  Info needed on Cincinnati brewpubs (babel)
  Homebrew Pubs in Boston? (LCNAVOT)
  yeast reuse correction & all grain costs (Jim Busch)
  Brewcap (Matthias Blumrich)
  Increasing Yields and Yeast (Mike Tavis)
  Wine (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: cold break (Brian Bliss)
  Summer Skiing at Mt. Hood (CCASTELL)
  Re: Extract Brewers, Yeast Attenuation (David Van Iderstine)
  Slow WYeast Growth (CCASTELL)
  Irish Red Ale (again) (Guy McConnell)
  Sanitizing counterflow chillers/All-grain snobs (korz)
  Re: recirculation FAQ (korz)
  Extracts knobs / overkill (WESTEMEIER)
  I need info on a research paper! (Kieran O'Connor)
  Shipping Homebrewed Beer? (dcheck77)
  Whole Hops (SynCAccT)
  Paulaner Hefe-Weizen (David Schleef)
  Garumph.  Enough with 'real brewers'! (thutt)


Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! 
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
  (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
  listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
  message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu



		IMPORTANT NEWS -- PLEASE READ
		-----------------------------

There will be nobody reading mail sent to homebrew-request during the
period Feb 8 through approx. Feb 28. This means that any requests for
changes or cancellations will not be handled until the end of the month.
Subscription requests will continue to be handled automatically, and the
digest will continue to be sent automatically, barring any computing
device catastrophes. So if you send a message here and get no immediate
reply, or if the digest stops suddenly, please do not panic. Just be
patient.

ps. and please try to behave yourselves while I'm gone ;-)



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:      Sun, 07 Feb 93 11:31:50 PST
From: Martin Lodahl <gueuze!mal at PacBell.COM>
Subject:   A New Journal


If you read the Celebrator this may be old news to you, but a new 
magazine devoted to the technical side of homebrewing, pub-brewing
or microbrewing is about to make its debut.  Called "Brewing Techniques",
it will break new ground in homebrewing (as far as I know) by being
an honest-to-goodness "peer review" journal.  The Editorial Advisory
Board (the peers who do the reviewing) consists of Patrick Baker, Byron 
Burch, Fred Eckhardt, Teri Fahrendorf, George Fix, Terry Foster, 
Mary Anne Gruber, Dave Miller, Greg Noonan, David Ryder and Bill
Siebel.  Impressive!  The clear wort of usable brewing information
certainly seems unlikely to be beclouded by the trub of unsupported
speculation presented as fact, with a panel like that reviewing
submissions.

The magazine will be published 6 times a year, at a subscription price
of $30.  For an unspecified time there will be a $24 introductory
rate for "charter" subscribers.  To subscribe, send a note with your 
name and address information to:

			Brewing Techniques
			P. O. Box 3076
			Eugene, OR 97403

You'll be billed after the release of the first issue, scheduled for May.
To discuss advertising rates or editorial questions, call Stephen
Mallery, Editor, at 503.683.1916.

I think this may be the magazine many of us have been waiting for ...



- -- 

= pbmoss.pacbell.com!gueuze!mal      Martin Lodahl       Auburn, CA =
= 	More reliable address: malodah at pbmoss.pacbell.com	    =


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1993 08:16:58
From: dduane at kestrel.win.net (Diane Duane)
Subject: Irish Ales and other matters

Hi all. 

Re Ulick Stafford's post of the Digest before last:

> While ale sales have been falling
>to lager (with stout relatively constant) sales of Smithwicks are still
>high.

I may get in trouble for this, but Smithwicks doesn't taste much like
an ale any more.  One of the things interfering with this is the excessive
carbonation.  It now tastes more like a red lager:  to me at least.  
(Granted, this is all very subjective.)  What with my husband's and my 
writing careers, we spend a fair amount of time in the UK, and a lot of
it staying in pubs, by preference:  and we drink a fair amount of ale,
"real" ale by preference, others as desired.  The carbonation in them is 
always minor -- you might get a "petillant" pint, but nothing that fizzes
like our present Smithwicks.  And again, to me, it simply doesn't taste
ale-like.  It had never even occurred to me to think of it as an ale until
Ulick called it one.  

>  MacArdles is also sold nationwide in bottles and can be got
>on draft in local areas. 

Ulick, where did you find it on draft?  We are in and out of Dublin a lot,
and hit many of the major pubs in town, and I haven't seen McArdles on 
draft anyplace.  In bottles, yes, and I thank you for reminding me of it.
But down here (Wicklow), it's thin on the ground.  

> In Waterford one can even get Phoenix Ale
>in large bottles produced at the small Cherry' brewery there.

I never heard of this, and would very much like to try it.  Thanks for 
mentioning it!

>  Bass is also produced in Belfast and is
>an Irish Ale having slightly different taste than British produced
>Bass. 

Mmmm...true, and I dislike both forms of Bass immensely, so probably 
I am not equipped to critique it.

> Unfortunately the virtual monopoly Guinness have on the Irish
>market, and indeed on malt and hop industries has meant that there are fewer 
>small brewers than elsewhere.

True, but maybe with the trade barriers down between us and the
North, we'll see at least some Hilden coming down here.  The Hilden Ale
is extremely nice.  They are also now brewing a stout (Great Northern,
I think it's called).  

>Another point I would question was Diane's statement that Irish Bud 
>was 2.5 times stronger than American stuff.  While it does taste a
>little better (It would be hard not to), it is 4.3% by vol as 
>against US Bud which is 4.6%.

(grin)  This one I'm going to blame on my husband.  (Truly, though, I
think I must have misheard him.  He's been going around the house muttering
"A *time* and a half stronger, not two and a half times....")  I will
pop down to the pub and pull the specific gravity and other figures.  
But certainly it is stronger...one of the local spectator sports is
watching the American tourists come through, and see Bud on the pull, and
say,  "Looka here, Marge, they got Buuuuud here," and proceed to drink 
as much of it as they would have drunk in front of the TV at home.  And
then they fall over, and then we stack them up by the wall and 
put a tarp or something over them until they wake up.  Ah, my poor
countrymen!  

Best to everyone, and thanking Ulick again for his advice.  D

Diane Duane / Kestrel Ridge / Avoca, Co. Wicklow, Ireland 
          Fidonet: 2:263/164 / Ci$:  73200,3112
            Internet:  dduane at kestrel.win.net  
"A little science...a little magic...a little chicken soup."               

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 12:06:01 MET
From: THOMASR at EZRZ1.vmsmail.ethz.ch
Subject: homemade wine

hello all. my last message seems to have disappeared (come back rob, all
is forgiven). However someone else replied to the question of how to make
wine, and correctly said that extract + water doesn't make the best
wine. However, he then went on to say that you can only get good wine
from grapes etc. How wrong! We regularly see recipes for beer that
do not conform to the german purity laws, but still taste excellent.....
 .... possibly because they don't (I'll take an industrial example : most
english bitters contain types of sugar, eg mollasses). Well it's the same
with wine. Wine making started long before the french made it their own.
People have been making blackberry, strawberry, in fact hundreds of
NON-grape wines for centuries. It is the "grape wine snobs" and a very
powerful french industry which has meant that you can't buy them (a few
companies in britain sell them, including Gales - the brewery).
True this is a beer forum, and also true there are (sorry is) a digest
for wine, but please don't tell people off for asking! If anyone wants info
or wants to flame me please email me direct.
My wife and I have been both brewing and wine making for quite some years
now, and can safely say that both are extremely enjoyable, not least
because of the choice of drinks it gives us.
Sorry about the length of this rant, and sorry to the HBD - content - 
purists. but I had to get my word in!
Rob Thomas

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1993 08:28:43 EST
From: babel at vs2.uh.cwru.edu
Subject: Info needed on Cincinnati brewpubs

I'm headed down to Cincinnati this coming weekend for a business trip
and was wondering if there were any good (or bad) brewpubs in the area.
I've heard that there is one right across the boarder in Kentucky, but 
that is the only one that I have heard of.

If you know of any in or around the Cincinnati area please send email
ASAP.

			Thanks,

					Juli
- --
"Tell me lover are you trick or treat
 It's just that I'm all mistrusting
 when things taste so sweet"

Withches' night			Witches' night
take me by disguise             the harvest moon lies
I should have dressed up        We all do
for the sake of sore eyes       Witches' night 

			--LadyIce


Return to table of contents


Date:         Mon, 08 Feb 93 15:50:50 +0200
From: LCNAVOT at WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL
Subject:      Homebrew Pubs in Boston?

A friend will be spending a month in Boston. Could someone recomend a pub or
two in Boston, where my he will be able to taste and enjoy homebrewed beer?
Thanks
Nir

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 9:20:23 EST
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: yeast reuse correction & all grain costs

In the last digest I made a somewhat erroneous statement regarding
glycogyn reserves in dormant yeast cells.  IF the yeast has been
treated well and not shocked, then the dormant cells will have
plenty of glycogyn reserves afer sitting in the secondary.  The
cells should wake up fine when fed fresh wort.  An important
issue is to avoid "yeast shock" which could lead the cells to 
excrete nasties back into your beer.  So, just be careful handling
the yeast and it should wake up fine.

RE: Costs of all grain brewing.

JS has again fired up the snobbery issue and generated a lot of
wasted bandwidth in the process.  I am sure jack is pleased.  What 
I want to comment on is the response that implied the reason to 
avoid all grain brewing is cost.  It has been noted in this forum
before that going all grain does not mean going broke.  To sum up
the costs needed (a low budget, workable setup):
2 plastic buckets with the holes drilled in one, plus a spigot-
$10
used 7 gallon SS kettle - 35-50$.
(maybe-corona mill-45$,new)
wort chiller, built at home, $25.
total- 65-130$ 

now look at the savings-dry malt extract at my local store was $9/
3 lbs!  So an extract brew would cost between 15-20 for malt, plus
hops & yeast, 23-27$/5 gallons.

All grain- 8lbs domestic 2 row at 30-50 cents/lb, 3-4$.  Add 2-5$ for
hops & yeast, $5-9 per 5 gallons.  The average homebrewer brews 10-20
times a year.  At 10 per year, the extract cost would be between 230 
and 270$ per year.  At 20, 460-540 per year.  The same all grain 
brewer would spend ~50-90$ at 10 per year, or 100-200 at 20 per year.
So the cost would be recovered in 10 batches or so.  Not bad, eh??

Jim Busch


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 12:26:53 -0500
From: Matthias Blumrich <mb at Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Brewcap

I just bought a BrewCap last weekend and I would like to know if anyone has
any advice before I try it (including "you wasted your money" :-) ).  One thing
I found curious is the warning against dry hopping with pellets since they
might clog the blowoff hose.  I don't see why this is true.  Would it be better
to put the pellets in a hop bag which would contain most of them?  Any advice
is most welcome.

 - Matt -

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 12:59:00 est
From: mtavis at gemini.hyperdesk.com (Mike Tavis)
Subject: Increasing Yields and Yeast

After all the great advice I received on my "Diminishing Yields" post,
I wanted to report back to the digest with my solution.  For those who
don't recall, my post detailed the drop in my extract rate as a
function of the size my grain bed (the bigger the bed, the lower the
extract rate).

One important piece of information that I left out in my original post
was that I use a 5-gallon Rubbermaid cylindrical cooler with slotted
copper tubing for my mash/lauter tun.  My basic problem was that I
wasn't raising the temperature of the grain bed enough during mash
out. 

Someone (sorry I forget the name) with the same setup said he/she adds
near boiling water to raise the temperature of the grain bed to the
168-170 range during mash out.  Naturally, the amount of mash out
water that you add (restricted by how much room is left in the cooler)
determines the temperature of the water required.  At some point there
isn't enough room left in the cooler to raise the temperature even
with boiling water.  Someone else (sorry again) said they get around
this problem by draining the cooler, heating the removed liquid, and
adding it back to the lauter tun.

I didn't have to resort to draining the cooler.  I used the first
technique and was able to bring my grain bed up to 167.  Previously, I
used the sparge water (at 170) to do the mash out.  I never took the
temperature of the grain bed in my old process, but I would guess that
it was in the mid to high 150's.

The result of the new process was a much faster sparge as well as an
extract rate of 29 pts/lb/gal.  Also, the wort come to a boil
noticeably faster.  I want to thank everybody that contributed their
thought and experience to my problem.

On another note, I've noticed that certain yeasts strains have
characteristic fermentation styles.  For example, WYeast 1056 seems to
have an very active start and ferment out quickly.  WYeast 1007, on
the other hand, seems to have a slower drop off and continues to
ferment for longer.  These observations are based on the highly
scientific glugs per second model, but they do seem to be
reproducible.  I was wondering if there was any real analysis of the
fermentation styles of different yeast strains?  Thanks again.

- -- Mike

  o o|  Michael Tavis, HyperDesk Corporation
  o o|  Suite 300, 2000 West Park Dr., Westboro, MA  01581
  ---+  E-mail: mike_t at hyperdesk.com        (508) 366-5050


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 09:20 CST
From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Wine

 
 >From: connell at vax.cord.edu
 >Subject: homemade wine
 
 >I have noted with curiosity that while there is discussion of sidelines
 to beer brewing that shows up on the digest (cider, mead), there is
 almost no discussion of homemade wines.
 
 While HOMEBREW Digest should provde the answer, it does not really explain 
 why cider and mead are discussed far more frequently than wine.
 
 My guess is that it has something to do with the universal availability of 
 apple juice and honey vs the regional availability of grapes.  The other lies 
 in the beer vs wine drinking statistics of Americans.
 
 >I have never read about or experimented with homemade wines, but I have the 
 idea that people just dump concentrate and water in a carboy and add yeast.  
 
 If that is the standard ritual, it is no wonder few people do it.  It hardly 
 is a program for great wine.
 
 I have made wine for years and used everything from dandelions and sugar to 
 home grown grapes.
 
 With the proper grapes and scientific procedures one can make excellent 
 wines.  Using concentrates and your procedure, one has a hard time improving 
 on el cheapo jug wine and concentrates are very expensive.
 
 I am sitting on my most recent batch which I described in detail here during 
 the startup stages but there is little to say about it while it sits for 
 months on end.  I don't expect the final report in less than ten years and it 
 does not make for great discussions.  Furthermore, as good wine requires 
 fresh grapes, it is a seasonal project and I won't start another batch for 
 another year.
 
 However, as long as you brought it up....  I do think I learned something 
 from this batch that seems to confirm what has been said before.
 
 The wine contains 5 gals of home grown apple juice, and 11 lbs home grown 
 elderberries, grapes and mulberries.
 
 I heated the apple juice to 170F and added the fruit and thus sterilized 
 everything.  The wine tasted terriffic all through the process but now it is 
 obvious that it is never going to clear properly.  I tried gelatine, betonite 
 and now honey and oak chips.
 
 The word is that the heat destroys the enzyme that reacts with pectin and the 
 pectin will remain in suspension forever.  One can add a pectin destroying 
 enzyme during fermentaion to overcome this evil but I took my chances and 
 seem to have lost.  I am going to experiment with a small amount of the wine 
 and the enzyme at the present stage and will report what I learn.
 
 Well there you have it.  Be back in a year or so, on wine, that is.
 
 js
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 12:29:38 CST
From: bliss at csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss)
Subject: Re: cold break


>I got reacquainted with my grain mill et al last weekend.  I brewed up a 10
>gal batch, everything went well.  Then I ran it through my counter-flow chiller
>and really ZAPPED it with Boulder's near-freezing tap water, causing a great
>cold-break.  I had a semi-slow moving 1056 Wyeast starter going so I pitched
>the two carboys and went to bed.  My wife just gave me a copy of Miller's
>Complete Handbook, and he seems to go to great lengths to get the wort off
>the trub, racking soon after pitching.  I left the stuff in there and it
>settled out and formed a semi-solid layer on the bottom, even the churning
>ferment of the last few days has left it pretty much undististurbed EXCEPT
>it seems to have all these little "worm-holes" in it.  It's as if during the
>active primary ferment some part of the trub has been used by the yeast.

> 1)does leaving the cold-break in the primary (a feature of a counter-flow
> chiller) harm the beer?

Yes.  Side-by-side tests done by a reader of this forum concluded
that the effects were most objectionable when combined with the lack
of a blow-off for the primary.  Personally, I feel that I can tell
the difference, but one cannot be objective about it without side
by side comparisons.  I can say that not racking detracts from the
clarity of the beer, if not corrected by cold aging or the use of
clarifiers.

> 2)does it help the yeast, nutrients etc.?

Yes.  The yeast will feed on the cold break, and leaving the wort on 
the break will help the yeast get started.  Miller claims that after
fermentation begins, the hop resins in the break will cause fusel
alcohols to be produced.  Possible solutions are:

a) pitch the yeast, let it sit on the break for a few hours, then
   rack off into the primary.  disadvantage: if you use a quick starting
   yeast (i.e. Whitbread) and wait too long, it will stir up the trub
   at the bottom before you have a chance to rack.  Also, if the yeast
   starter has fermented out (post high-krausen), much of the yeast
   will settle to the bottom and never make it to the primary.

b) let the break/trub settle (possibly overnight in a refrigerator)
   this corrects the disadvantages of (a), but adds to the risk of
   infection, as the yeast is not pitched immediately after cooling.
   If you chill the wort below 60F or so you will sufficiently inhibit
   any foreign bacteria and there is nothing to worry about, assuming
   you have been sanitary in your procedures.  The yeast does not
   get to initially feed on the trub, but I would argue the advantages
   of letting it do so, anyway.

c) use an immersion chiller and leave the trub in the brew kettle. 
   This saves on time and the number of fermenters required (and
   the time to clean them).  disadvantages: the wort is more prone
   to foreign bacteria in an open kettle while cooling than when
   using a counterflow chiller, and you will not be able to see
   the dividing line between the wort and trub (unless you are using
   a pyrex boiler $$$).  When I use this method I squeeze the hops to get
   the last little bit out, then transfer this with the remaining trub
   in the kettle into 1 gallon glass jug(s) and let sit in the fridge.
   After a day at really cold temps you can recover quite a bit more
   clear wort (typically .5-1 gallon for me) and either re-boil it
   and add it to the fermenter, or add it to the next batch.  This
   is mainly a problem when using lots of leaf/plug hops.

> 3)is a beer-style thing (lagers no, ales yes)

At colder temperatures the yeast will not stir up the sediment on
the bottom of the fermenter, so there will be less contact between
live yeast and the trub, as in your case.  You can still rack the
beer off as long as this layer remains undisturbed (though you may
have to restart the siphon several times if CO2 keeps stopping it).
The cold temps used in conjunction with lager yeasts will usually
leave the trub layer intact, but fusel alcohols are much more
objectionable in lagers than in ales.

> 4)can anybody tell the difference?

See (1)

> 5)any ideas on what has been taken out of the trub to make the worm-holes?

Some clumps of yeast which were trapped in the layer became active
and created them as they rose back into solution.  Alternatively,
they may still be trapped in the layer, but the escaping CO2 bubbles
created the holes.

bb

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Feb 93 12:11
From: CCASTELL.UNIX11 at mailsrv2.eldec.com (CCASTELL)
Subject: Summer Skiing at Mt. Hood

The Northwest division of the Professional Ski Instructors of America
(PSIA-NW) holds three summer race camps each summer at Mt. Hood.  The
dates for this year are:
3-day camp July 23-25
5-day camp July 28-Aug 1
3-day camp July 30-Aug 1

I haven't seen pricing information yet for this year, but it normally
costs around $200 (if my memory is correct) for the lessons and lift
tickets for a 3-day session.  The 5-day sessions are a little more.
Food and lodging are up to you.  (Some people take a tent and camp
out.)

Most of you are reading this thinking that I've sent mail to the
wrong digest.  However, consider the dates:

3-day Summer Race Camp, Mt. Hood           July 23-25
AHA National Convention, Portland          July 26-30
Oregon Brewers Festival, Portland          July 30-Aug 1

Looks like quite a week.  Its been on my calendar for quite a while
now, and I thought that I would share this opportunity with any
skiers out there.

The camp is offered to instructors first, and if it doesn't fill up
by some date (not announced yet this year), they open up registration
to anyone.  Email questions/requests for more information directly to
me so as not to take up any more space here.  Send to: ccastell at eldec.com
ignore whatever my mailer says my return address is.  (I am a yearly
particpant in the race camp, not an organizer, so I have no financial
interest in the program other than having spent money on it!)

Charlie



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 15:12:24 EST
From: orgasm!davevi at uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine)
Subject: Re: Extract Brewers, Yeast Attenuation

To quote (and beat the proverbial dead horse):

>Keeping in mind that lots of people stick with extract because they are lazy,
>paranoid or il-informed (blah blah blah) .....

  So, Jack, since *YOU* were still an extract brewer right up until the middle 
of last year, which were you-lazy, paranoid, or ill-informed? Maybe you left
one out?

  If anyone else gets as ticked off as I do with stupid statements like 
that quoted above, I've been advised our only recourse is to FLOOD the 
poster with private e-mail stating how we feel. Please do; I am!


  On a (Thank God!) completely different topic, does anyone have handy a chart
of yeast strains attenuitivity (attenuitiveness??). You know, when they'll
poop out, assuming perfect aeration, enough starter, etc.? I think it was 
posted fairly recently, but of course I can find it. Mucho gracias.


	Dave Van Iderstine 

===========================================================================
== Dave Van Iderstine                           Senior Software Engineer ==
==                   Xerox Imaging Systems, Inc.                         ==
== UUCP: uunet!pharlap!orgasm!davevi        davevi at pharlap.com :INTERNET ==
==-----------------------------------------------------------------------==
==			All Extract, Damn Proud!			==
===========================================================================

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Feb 93 12:17
From: CCASTELL.UNIX11 at mailsrv2.eldec.com (CCASTELL)
Subject: Slow WYeast Growth

I have packet of Vintner's Choice (WYeast) Champagne yeast from last
September.  I've had it in the refrigerator until I could find suitable
apple juice to make this year's cider.  (Actually, I've had a tough
time finding suitable juice this year, so I guess I just go with what
I have.)

I whacked the pouch the evening of 2-2.  By morning on 2-3, there was
SOME growth.  By morning of 2-4, it was where it normally would have
been after 12 hours.  Now on 2-8, it has hardly changed since 2-4.
The envelope is not tight at all, and I am in no fear of going home and
finding yeast all over the walls of my kitchen.

Prior experience with beer and champagne WYeast has been similar to what
has been reported here, namely that the activity seemed strong in spite
of an extra month or three.  Since nothing has happened lately, should I:
1) assume the nutrient isn't nutritious, and pour it into some starter?
or
2) toss the packet, not wanting to throw good cider after bad yeast

Charlie
ccastell at eldec.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 14:42:28 CST
From: gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell)
Subject: Irish Red Ale (again)

Ulick Stafford writes:

> Guy McConnell reproduces a blurb from Coor's about Killian's Red.
> Much of it is true other than the fact that it paints Old Adolphus
> and family as being something other than Ogres.

    Well, I didn't reproduce anything except nuggets from a fading memory.  I
don't even recall for sure where I came by this information but it wasn't from
Coors directly.  I called Coors a "kindhearted" megabrewer, an oxymoron if ever
there was one.  I even put in the quote marks as above.  I mentioned the fact 
that Coors had removed virtually all of the beer's character and decided that 
it should be a lager (I'm still not sure about that part - *was* it an ale when
it was brewed in Ireland?).  I also mentioned that micros and homebrewers were
responsible for reviving the Irish Red Ale style, much like porter.  I don't
credit Coors with doing anything except making Killian's fit in the American
mass market by sucking the very life out of it.  That is why I would violently
oppose Budweiser getting their hands on the real Budvar.  The one saving grace
of Coors is that they are the only megabrewer still producing a decent, all
barley beer, albeit seasonally, in Winterfest.  We couldn't even get that here
in Huntsville this year.  I don't count Miller's "Special Reserve" because there
is not a dime's worth of difference between that and "Genuine Draft" in spite
of the "all-barley" hoopla.  How anyone could use all barley and produce a
beer so lacking in any sort of beer character is beyond me.  I guess I expected
too much.  Anyway, I was being quite sarcastic in my treatment of Coors' 
motives and if I painted them as "less than Ogres" it was not intentional.

    By the way Ulick, I found your posts on the state of Irish brewing most
enlightening.  It is a shame that the producer of so fine a beer as Guinness
Stout would use such tactics to keep a stranglehold on the market.

- --
Guy McConnell  gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com
       "All I need is a pint a day"



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 15:25 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Sanitizing counterflow chillers/All-grain snobs

DLAMARPL writes:
>Several sources indicate the hazards of using alkaline solutions (e.g.
>chlorine) to sanitize copper.  None I have seen, however, suggest alternatives
>other than boiling.  What are effective sanitizing agents for equipment that
>cannot be boiled (e.g. counterflow wort chillers)?

Ahh, but you *can* sanitize a counterflow chiller with boiling water.  Boil
up some water and siphon it through the chiller with the cooling water turned
off.

************

Regarding all-grain snobbishness, I'd like to say that indeed, it's a stupid
thread and those who still care about it should all take it off-line.

But before we do, I want to get in my two pence ;^):
I spoke with Jack yesterday at the CBS US Ale Fest at Goose Island and it
appears that he has gotten lots of private email regarding his post.  I
feel that this is the best course of action when you disagree with a person's
post in the HBD.  Let's not all overreact here.  I agree that Jack's post
took an abrasive tone but so did Greg's.  Are we counting wins and losses
here?  Let's not let our egos get in the way of brewing beer.  Let's not
take every post as some kind of life-threatening situation.  It's not.

Personally, lately I've been so busy these days (I've recently opened
a homebrew supply store *in addition to* working at AT&T) that it's hard
to find the time to brew an extract batch let alone the time to brew
all-grain, so virtually all my recent competition entries have been
extract beers.  In fact, my last 12 prize-winners were all extract +
specialty grain beers.  It just goes to show that good beer *can* be
brewed without mashing.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 15:30 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re: recirculation FAQ

Chris writes:
>Since many topics come up in cyclical manner it would be nice if they could be
>answered in a FAQ format.  And since some topics have more than one accepted
>answer the FAQs should try to show all sides of an issue.
>
>So to get the ball rolling here is an example:
>
>FAQ #0000-000:
>
>[Note that 0000 indicates the number of the FAQ and -000 indicates its version.
> The version mechanism allows mistakes and inaccuracies to be corrected and
>newer information to be included in newer versions of the FAQ.]

Sounds good, but: 1) where will they be kept -- I, for example, cannot FTP
anything from any of my machines and I've had great difficulty getting
stuff from the archives, and 2) "0000" is not very informative -- there
would of course have to be an index, but who would maintain this?

>FAQ #0001-01:  Recirculation:  What is it, and should I do it?
>
>Recirculation is a practice employed in the lautering of mashed grains where
>the turbid sweet wort is collected, as it is runoff, and recirculated through
>the grain bed until the runoff becomes clear.
>
>Most sources of homebrewing information will tell you that you should employ
>the practice of recirculation to avoid significant amounts of chaff in the
>       [etc.]

I have a few comments, not actually mine, but they've been posted here, so
I'm recirculating (pun intended) them.

Micah wrote:
>	There have been some questions about both head retention (beer)
>and chill haze problems. I think that a large portion of the problem
>is a lack of lipids in the wort.
>        Lipids are very important elements for proper beer stability.
>Lipids are unsaturated fatty acids, this means that they are available
>to form new bonds with other elements of the wort. Although only a few
>ppm of lipids are present in finished wort, they can have far reaching
>effects on factors such as yeast viability, ester formation, gushing
>and flavour staling. Small variations in brewhouse procedure can produce
>large variations in wort lipids. Lipids adhere to trub particles ( trub
>contains up to 50% lipids) and to filter materials. Spent grains are high
>in lipids. A turbid top runoff from the lauter tun can contain 5 times,
>and even 40 times as many lipids as the clear wort runoff from the same
>mash. Also yeast will autolyze if it does not receive small amounts of
>ergosterol or unsaturated lipids.
>        North American grown barley malt contains very small amounts of
>free fatty acids (3.2-3.5 mg\l) opposed to european malts (18-26 mg\l).
>Insufficient fatty acid levels can result in high esters in the
>finished product and can also be responsible for gushing problems in the
>finished beer. The addition of unsaturated fatty acids can cure gushing.
>While the addition of saturated fatty acids tends to increase gushing.
>The content of unsaturated fatty acids has a strong influence on the
>formation of fermentation volitiles, notably the acetate esters. A wort
>that has been stripped of lipids could produce a beer too high in esters.
>        I beleive that a shortage of lipids may be a problem that
>homebrewers encounter because of their obsession with mash extraction
>yields. This need to eke out every trace of sugar from a mash, leads home
>brewers to practice wort recycling and or flaufing. These can be risky
>sparging techniques with regard to hot side aeration as well as stripping
>lipids from the wort. Recycling is the collecting of the wort as it runs
>out of the lauter tun and pouring it back over the grain bed. Many brewers
>claim that recycling should be done to settle the grain bed. Flaufing is
>the collecting of the wort as it runs out of the lauter tun, boiling it
>and then returning it to the top of the grain bed. These practices not
>only give oppurtunity for hot oxygen and wort reactions, but also strip
>out fatty acids (which North American grown malts are low in) that are
>essential for proper yeast nutrition.
>        I have long felt that mash recycling was a bad thing, in that
>it tends to remove a lot of large particulate matter that would otherwise
>be in the boil. I feel that these particles ( husks and grits mostly)
>provide a place for proteins to clump onto during the boil and then
>settle out more effectively in cooling.
>       I have observed much clearer finished wort (cooled) from my
>boils, when the mashes were conducted with no recycling of wort than
>from those of other brewers whose worts were made by recycling the mash.
>
>
>                                              Micah Millspaw 3/31/92
>
>
>	A lack of sufficient lipids will cause the finshed beer to have
>stability problems one of which is head retention. Above it was mentioned
>that additions of lipids could cure gushing, I would make it clear that
>gushing is a head retention problem, and that it causes acn be the same
>as those responsable for no head formation at all.
> 
>                                             Micah Millspaw 6/3/92       

Note that I asked Micah (in private email, via Bob Jones) to give me
sources for more info on this "need for lipids," but I guess he was
(understandably) too busy with his new venture.  It's not that I don't
trust Micah, but when someone introduces something so different from
what I've read before (why haven't I read *something* about this before?),
I have a tendancy to doubt first and read up on it.  Can anyone (George?
John? Mike?) substantiate this "need for lipids?"

Darryl wrote:
>> From: Phillip Seitz <0004531571 at mcimail.com>
>> Since this is a friendly forum I'll ask what seems to me to be
>> the obvious: why is extensive recirculation any different from
>> sparging with very large amounts of water?  My question refers to
>
>Because the pH of the wort is low, recirculation will not remove
>tannins.  But when you sparge, you may, depending on the ions present in
>your water.  This is the reason that Dave Miller suggests adding a bit
>of lactic acid to your sparge water.
>
>>  the extraction of tannins and the dreaded "teabag" effect (which
>> I have been able to create in the privacy of my own home!).  It
>> seems to me that either way there will be a fair amount of rinsing
>> going on.  Based on George Fix's posting yesterday, this
>
>The idea of recirculation is not to rinse, but to give the grain bed a
>chance to form, and thus hold back all of the solid material.
>
>It usually takes me about 20 minutes, or 5 gallons, of recirculation on
>a 15 gallon batch.  This through a Coleman 80 quart picnic cooler with
>a slotted copper pipe manifold.
>
>> recirculation DOES result in some tannic/husk extraction.  Well,
>> how much is too much (recirculation, that is)?
>My motto is to recirculate until the wort is as clear as I want my beer.
>
>> I suppose this could also lead to questions about decoction mashing,
>> since we're not supposed to boil our grains either.
>
>Yes, it certainly could.  But the decoct is also quite acidic, so even
>boiling in that circumstance does not extract substantial tannins.
>Those that are extracted may be conglommerated and precipitate out with
>the extra proteins that are also extracted, during the kettle boil.
>
>		--Darryl Richman


(to be continued)
Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: 08 Feb 1993 20:32:43 -0500 (EST)
From: WESTEMEIER at delphi.com
Subject: Extracts knobs / overkill

On the subject of extract v. all-grain, I can't resist adding a data point.
I've been a homebrewer for five years, all-grain for three.  I have a friend
who has been an extract/adjunct grain brewer for 15 years.  I would give a
lot to brew beers as good and as consistently as he does.  It's practice and
technique, I think, more than ingredients and method, that make for success.

On another topic, I'd like to thank Alan "Overkill" Edwards for his tables,
charts, curves, and assorted efforts to put nice, neat numbers to our
squishy, seat-of-the-pants approximations.  I certainly appreciate it, and
so do the other members of my local club.

Ed Westemeier, Cincinnati OH <<westemeier at delphi.com>>
Member, Bloatarian Brewing League

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 20:48 EDT
From: Kieran O'Connor <OCONNOR%SNYCORVA.bitnet at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: I need info on a research paper!

Hi all,

I am working on a research paper for my MA in History. I sleazed a
coupling of brewing and research and managed to convince my professor
that a paper on the consolidation of the brewing idustry would be a
good topic.

What I'd like to write about is how the United States, chiefly through
prohibition, changed form a country with many breweries to one with a
few super regionals and national breweries.

I'd also like to look into the resurgence of micro-brewed and
homebrewed beers as a result of the bland offerings of the commercial
giants.

I guess what i could use is some help in some sources.  i can
certainly search the New York Times index, and I've done some
searching for texts.  Any thoughts on places to look?

I will be sending letters to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (hopefully they wont haul me away on COPS) :-(. Could
folks help me with addresses for the big breweries? Or other places
out there which might have a treasure trove of material? Anything at
UC Davis?

If anyone is initerested--I'll gladly upload a copy of the finished
product--as long as I earn a decent grade ;-).

Thanks for all the help--could you reply via personal mail or via this
forum with the header of "BREW PAPER". It makes life a lot easier.
Thanks in advance.


Kieran O'Connor

E-Mail Addresses:

Bitnet: oconnor at snycorva
Internet: oconnor at snycorva.cortland.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 22:09:07 EST
From: dcheck77 at Jade.Tufts.EDU
Subject: Shipping Homebrewed Beer?


	I am almost considering myself an amateur brewer at this point, having
brewed two batches so far (both coming out surprisingly excellent -- luck?).
I'm brewing up in the Boston area (Framingham specifically), and I was looking
to send (heh heh) some of my beer to Santa Rosa, CA.

a) Is this legal?
b) Possible?
c) Advisable?

	If anybody wants to laugh at me directly, or possibly enlighten me as
to some great news about my shipment dilemma, please do.

Thanks much,

_-_Dan Checkoway	Student of Mechanical Engineering
Tufts University	Medford, MA 02155

email :  dcheck77 at jade.tufts.edu

"Up here in Boston we call it Frappe..."

Return to table of contents


Date: 9 Feb 93 03:37:53 GMT
From: SynCAccT at slims.attmail.com
Subject: Whole Hops

In HBD1071 I posted a comment regarding leaf hops in reference to
the loose hops I was purchasing from Freshops (not named in the
post) and information I received indicating that they were sweep-ups
because they were loose petals instead of whole cones. I received
this email from Glenn Tinseth and am posting it with his permission.

I will continue to use Freshops with no reservations tnks to Glenn's
legwork.

I continue to be baffled as to why some brewers insist that their
methods or opinions are exclusive. I have a hard enough time with
life without this kind of crap in my hobby.....Glenn Anderson
gande at slims.attmail.com

USUAL DISCLAIMERS.......

***************************************************************
To: internet!attmail!slims!gande

Glenn,

First of all let me compliment you on your name. I am a not yet
prominent west coast hop retailer (The Hop Source) who deals
exclusively in whole hops, imported and domestic. In a recent post
you mentioned some alarming info about a "west coast hop vender" that
you had received from the salesperson who sold you some Saaz hop
plugs. I am a competitor with Dave Wills (Freshops) if that's who you
mean, and would benefit if his business diminished. That being said
let me tell you the following.

What you were told is complete and utter bunk, Freshops buys whole
bales from Hopunion and repackages them in ziplock baggies. The floor
is never involved except as a place for the person filling the bags
to rest his/her weary feet.  I suspect that the person who told you
this does not know what they're talking about and may have a grudge
against Dave although I can't imagine why. I really did check into
this and representatives from Morris Hanbury, Hopunion, and GW Kent
all said virtually the same thing, that the person who told you this
is misinformed and also not a very nice person :-O

Whether or not a hop cone breaks into a bunch of loose bracts is
dependent on many factors including the care the grower takes in
harvest and drying, the subsequent handling received at the hands of
the broker, and even the variety and weather conditions. I get hops
directly from the UK (actually they are the hops that go into the 1/2
oz plugs) and they range from quite broken up to pretty whole
depending on the lot and the variety. In any event there is *no* loss
in brewing value when a hop breaks into pieces although it is
definitely less aethetically pleasing ;^)

Since you didn't mention the name of the hop vendor or the
salesperson, I decided to e-mail this, if you want you can post all
or part. I *am* very interested in knowing who said this so if you
are OK with it let me know.  There is no room for this kind of crap
in this industry!!

Wow that feels lots better getting this off my chest. Thanks.

Take care,

Glenn Tinseth
tinsethg at ucs.orst.edu
503-873-2879






Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 01:15:53 -0800 (PST)
From: David Schleef <dschleef at lclark.edu>
Subject: Paulaner Hefe-Weizen


     The yeast in the bottom of imported and domestic bottles of Paulaner
is very hard to re-propogate since all Hefeweizen at Paulaner is
pasturized. This piece of information I know as a fact, since working on
the bottling line (and in the brewhouse) was part of an one-month
internship I did last March at Paulaner.  I donot know, however, the exact
difference between the yeast used for bottling and the yeast used in
the primary ferment (never thought to ask) but I would imagine that the
bottling yeast is a special bottom fermenting strain and the primary yeast
is a top fermenting weizen strain.
                    David Schleef
dschleef at lclark.edu
 



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Feb 93 07:59:37 EST
From: thutt <thutt at MAIL.CASI.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Garumph.  Enough with 'real brewers'!

In regards to the vapid discussion about 'real brewers', let me pose
the following questions.

    o Do you drive?
    o Do you know how to set the points for your car?
    o Can you overhaul your engine?
    o Do you know how to do brake work?
    o Can you use Bondo? (have you tasted it?) (can you get the
      catalyst off your hands? if so, how?)

    If you have not answered 'yes' to all these questions, you are
    obviously an amatuer driver, and a danger to those of use who 
    CAN, and DO, all of these things.  Please stay off the road.

My point? Get a life people.

This is getting to be more stupid than alt.sex.wanted.  There are
different levels of interests for hobbies.  (ex: My mother collects
porcelain dolls.  Other people collect barbies.  Both collect dolls,
but neither is better nor worse than the other).

You began making beer because of some personal reason, for your own
consumption.  Quit comparing yourself to other people.  If you are
happy with the beer you make, then drink it, and share your
experiences.  

If you are not happy with your beer, give it away, tell us what you did 
wrong, ask for advice on how to fix it, and share your experiences.

The discussion on bees was much more entertaining that this crap.

      Taylor Hutt
      Championing worldwide usage of Oberon-2!


Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1074, 02/10/93