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


Contents:
  Addr: blue (RKING)
  New Supplier in Connecticut (Joe Mulligan)
  Champagne - Urbanna, IL Brewpub inquiry (LeRoy S. Strohl)
  Whitbread warning, part I (donald oconnor)
  whitbread warning, part 2 (donald oconnor)
  Belgian Aromatic (Tony Babinec)
  better ginger flavour (eurquhar)
  Freshops (David Van Iderstine)
  Ale yeast sold by Northeast Brewers Supply (""Robert C. Santore"")
  Chocolate (HOWED)
  Cannot reach Don and Wally (korz)
  cancel (P Eric Melby)
  Late Reply to the Brass Question (Thomas Feller)
  Help! (SWEENERB)
  Dead fermentation ("Mark Rich-mpr8a at acadvm1.uottawa.ca")
  How are your HOP'S? (CompuCom) <v-ccsl at microsoft.com>
  Belgian aromatic malt/misc questions/ (korz)
  Hunter/Corona vs MaltMill/hop utilization/pasteurization vs filtering (korz)
  Results!  Zymurgy special issues. (Rob Bradley)
  what to do with used grain bill (David C Mackensen)
  oh yeah (Re: what to do...) (David C Mackensen)
  RE:Questions (CompuCom) <v-ccsl at microsoft.com>
  Flaked barley as a specialty grain. (LYONS)
  TEXAS-SCHELL COMPETITION (LLROW)
  Beer Balls (RADAMSON)


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



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

Date: 30 Mar 93 08:30:47 EDT
From: RKING at VUNET.VINU.EDU
Subject: Addr: blue

I recently had a homebrew a friend sent me via another
friend. The beer was called Blue Porter. It gave me
double vision and put me to sleep. Hmmmnn. Does anyone
know what Blue Porter is and does it usually contain
any, uh...unauthorized substances added to it?
Sincerely to all.
   RKING at VUNET.VINU.EDU


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 8:57:13 EST
From: casey!aspen!joem at uu6.psi.com (Joe Mulligan)
Subject: New Supplier in Connecticut



A new homebrew supply store has opened in Monroe, CT: 

Maltose Express
391 Main Street (Rte 25)
Monroe, CT 06468 
(203)452-7332 
 
They are experienced brewers, and have operated a mail order business 
for several years. 
 
I tried a Pale Ale that Mark, one of the co-owners made, and it was
great !! And it was an extract brew (recipe will be shared if desired).      
 
This is the first supply store to open within a 20 mile radius of 
Fairfield, CT, where I (and many other homebrewers) live. This is
good news !! 
 
 
    CALL BEFORE STOPPING BY; THEY ARE NOT OPENED EVERY DAY !! 
 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Of course, I have no affiliation with this business. I just wanted to 
share this blessed event with others in the Monroe area. 
 
joem at nrd.ups.com  
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 9:22:28 EST
From: LeRoy S. Strohl <lstrohl at s850.mwc.edu>
Subject: Champagne - Urbanna, IL Brewpub inquiry

I will be attending a conference at the University of Illinois next
week, 4 April -7 April. Does anyone know of brewpubs in the area? Should
there be several, any preferences. Thanks in advance.
lstrohl at s850.mwc.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 08:23:41 -0600
From: oconnor at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (donald oconnor)
Subject: Whitbread warning, part I


There have been a number of digest posts in the past few weeks which 
suggest the quality of dry beer yeasts is improving.  The latest  post on 
this was in last Thursday's digest by George Fix.  I'd be delighted if these 
reports did indeed portend a new beginning for dry yeast, but I remain 
very skeptical.  If I may be allowed to play the devil's advocate, let me 
first explain why I think the recent reports offer limited encouragement at 
best and why I doubt the existing processors of dry yeast are likely to 
change their ways in the foreseeable future.

Dr. Fix states that the new Whitbread yeast passed his culture tests with 
flying colors.  I presume this means that the bacteria count was low and 
the viability was high.  This indeed is good but it should be noted that Dr. 
Fix also suggests that neither of these was the problem with the old 
Whitbread which he estimates made swill about 1/3 of the time.  Dr. Fix 
further points out that the dryness of these beers might be due to a 
nonculture (wild) yeast, particularly a S. diastaticus which can ferment 
dextrin.  This rather unique property of S. diastaticus allows this wild 
yeast to be detected by a culture method.  Basically, S. diastaticus will 
grow on a dextrin or starch agar while the culture yeast will not. 

However, I'd like to point out that the majority of nonculture yeasts 
common to brewing are strains of S. cerevisiae for which there are no 
reliable culture methods of detection.  In short, the new Whitbread could 
be even more contaminated than the old, but with a differerent wild yeast, 
and Dr. Fix's culture methods would not detect it.  There are methods 
which will detect most wild yeasts but these methods are quite 
sophisticated and would require equipment and expertise found in some 
microbiology or biochemical laboratories with fluorescence microscopy 
capabilities.

Although the culture tests conducted by Dr. Fix are indeed useful, 
particularly for Crosby and Baker, in screening out batches with gross 
contamination of bacteria, the only reliable and practical test of yeast 
purity for the homebrewer is simply to test the quality of the beer made 
with the Whitbread yeast.  The only practical way of knowing if wild 
yeasts are present is to sample the beer and look for off flavors and 
aromas, poor clarity, low final gravity, etc.

The other reports of improved dry yeast center around the new Lallemand 
yeasts, Windsor Ale, Nottingham, and Koenig.  These yeasts have drawn 
some attention in part because of the large ads in Zymurgy.  Some people 
on the digest have suggested these are also improved dry yeasts.  I 
expressed my doubts about these yeasts some time ago for reasons I'll 
outline below.  GW Kent, the distributor of these, recently indicated that 
one of these great new yeasts (sarcasm intended), Konig,  has been 
dropped because of contamination.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 08:38:02 -0600
From: oconnor at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (donald oconnor)
Subject: whitbread warning, part 2


Their are several factors which suggest that dry yeast processors will not 
produce improved dry beer yeast.  Firstly, dry yeast processors are 
primarily interested in bread yeast.  Bacterial contamination in bread 
yeast is not nearly as critical as it is in beer yeast.  Thus the processors are 
understandably content with the contamination level of their principle 
product and not inclined to spend money and time to improve a secondary 
product.

Secondly, although homebrewing is a recent trend in the US, it has a much 
longer history in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.  It seems a little 
unrealistic to think that yeast processors which have been entrenched in 
making poor yeast for so long are suddenly going to get their act together 
because of the American market.

Thirdly, culture tests such as those conducted by Dr. Fix for Crosby and 
Baker have been done before and it's difficult to find any evidence that the 
results influenced the processors in the slightest.  For example, the culture 
tests conducted by Dr. Michael Lewis et. al. and published in Zymurgy in 
the '89 special issue indicated some serious problems with amongst others, 
Whitbread.  From Dr. Fix's remarks, we now know that Whitbread only got 
worse after this, not better.

In spite of the long history of contaminated dry beer yeast, I don't think it 
is an inherent flaw of the process.  I suspect it is simply a lack of adequate 
quality control.  So what is required for adequate quality control?  Clearly 
the entire process must be carried out in a sterile environment.  This 
requires a room with sterile air (special ventilation equipment), sterile 
packaging materials, sterile glassware and equipment which requires an 
autoclave.  This is indeed what Dave Logsden at Wyeast has and I suspect 
at least some of the dry yeast processors have these capabilities.  Quality 
control is really the process of maintaining this sterile environment over 
time and that is where the dry yeast processors fall short.  Quality control 
requires routinely checking the yeast for contamination by culture 
methods such as those Dr. Fix runs for Crosby and Baker, routinely 
checking surfaces of equipment and glassware and even the walls for 
evidence of contamination.  If you take a swab off the wall or an empty 
flask and it grows on a agar media, you've got a problem.  Many breweries 
routinely make small batches of beer and check for wild yeast 
contamination by the off-flavors and aromas or appearance (flocculation) 
of the beer.  If processors of dry yeast are truly serious about cleaning up 
the dry yeast, they would carry out similar procedures.

A history of contaminated yeast suggests an inability to implement 
adequate quality control.  That is why I am particularly dubious of 
products from existing processors such as Lallemand in Canada, Distillers in 
England, Coopers in Australia (also supposedly better according to Dr. Fix 
as reported by Jeff Frane on rcb), and Red Star (back in production and 
also improved according to Jeff Frane as reported on rcb) in the US.  The 
reason I was immediately skeptical about the new Lallemand yeasts was 
that I saw nothing in the ads or information to indicate that Lallemand had 
improved its quality control.  I see nothing in the new information about 
Coopers and Red Star to suggest that they'll break their pattern of reliably 
making swill all too often.  The most hopeful note in Dr. Fix's post was that 
a new processor was drying Whitbread yeast.  It may well be that the new 
Whitbread is a good clean dry yeast--for now.  After all, if it's a new 
facility, it's likely to be quite sterile at the outset.  But the real test will be 
in a year or two.  Unless this new processor breaks the mold and institutes 
adequate quality control procedures, I think we can expect the new 
Whitbread to look very much like the old within a couple of years.  
Unfortunately, homebrewers won't be seeing any of the new and improved 
Whitbread for a while; it's only available to brewpubs for the time being.  
Apparently there is another Australian dry yeast called Mauri Brew (not 
produced by Coopers) which has appeared in Canada and is thought to be 
of better quality.

Don

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 9:35:35 CST
From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: Belgian Aromatic

CHUCKM writes about Dewolf-Cosyns Aromatic malt.  Well, yes, most
malts are aromatic, but the Aromatic is especially, uh, aromatic.
It has a color rating of about 25 Lovibond, which makes it a bit
darker than dark Munich.  You know how you'll read a recipe in
Charlie's book, and he'll tell you to toast a pound of malt in
the oven for 10 minutes.  Well, in a way, the manufacturing process
for the Aromatic malt has done this for you.  Aromatic malt works
especially well when used as a substantial fraction of your grain 
bill for bocks and doppelbocks, and could be used when you want
to make any malty amber to dark beer.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 07:48:03 -0800
From: eurquhar at sfu.ca
Subject: better ginger flavour

        I too was very interested in obtaining a strong ginger flavour as I
developed a taste for a Jamaican ginger beer ( non-alcoholic) last summer
which was quite pricey and not too available. So I looked in a text on food
flavouring production and found out that the ginger bite and aroma were
extracted very differently.  The volatile flavour as Dave Whitman suggested
is volatile and is obtained by distillation but has none of the ginger bite
just the spicey lemon flavour.  The ginger bite is obtained by using
repeated extraction with a mixture of ethanol and hot water.
        We found that the ginger "bite" being much less soluble in pure
water can be extracted by grinding fresh ginger to a fine pulp in a little
boiling water.  Then letting the mixture simmer for 10 minutes on the stove
in about a litre of water.  You can obtain a good extract this way.  You
then strain it out and repeat this with the pulp twice more. 
        Most of the spicy lemon flavour came out in the first extraction
with a good ginger bite present after the 4th extraction. The flavour of
the ginger beer was very strong at first but diminished slightly over time.
 This seemed due to some sedimentation as upon tasting it had quite a bite.
 Young fresh ginger (the one with the red stalk remnants) is much more
fragrant and lemony than mature ginger, I prefer it, use it at 2/3 young
and 1/3 mature ginger if you can get it.  At the level of 1 lb. ginger per
gallon you'll get lot's of ginger bite unless you're one of those people
who eat whole raw jalapeno's.  If using only mature ginger try about 8 oz.
to the gallon as it's much stronger.  Hope you find this info useful.

homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com


Eric Urquhart (eurquhar at sfu.ca)
Centre for Pest Management, Dept. of Biological Sciences
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby , B.C. Canada


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 10:44:44 EST
From: orgasm!davevi at uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine)
Subject: Freshops

			Freshops
			36180 Kings Valley Hwy.
			Pholmath, OR 97370
			(503)929-2736

They sell hops rhizomes (roots), as well as bagged leaf hops. The more
rhizomes you order, the more you'll get. Huh? For instance, last year I
ordered 4 and got 4. This year I ordered 8, and got 11!


===========================================================================
== Dave Van Iderstine                           Senior Software Engineer ==
==                   Xerox Imaging Systems, Inc.                         ==
== UUCP: uunet!pharlap!orgasm!davevi        davevi at pharlap.com :INTERNET ==
==-----------------------------------------------------------------------==
==          "I haven't got time for instant gratification!"              ==
===========================================================================

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 11:43:48 -0500
From: ""Robert C. Santore"" <rsantore at mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: Ale yeast sold by Northeast Brewers Supply

Greetings all HBD readers!  I have a question for anyone that may have
tried the North American Ale yeast sold by Northeastern Brewers Supply.
I brewed up a pale ale with this yeast, and as the beer has aged it has
been getting an increasing clove-phenolic flavor that really dominates
the taste of this beer.  It is not an objectionable, flavor.  In fact my
SO really loves this batch claiming that its spiciness reminds her of
Orval (you have to love a woman that says such things about your beer).  
Nevertheless, the taste is inappropriate for the style.  
     Last night I popped the first bottle of a stout that was also 
brewed with this yeast and much to my horror it also has this clove taste
that is strong enough to dominate even the pound of roasted barley that
I used in this five gallon batch.  So, now I'm pretty sure that the 
yeast is the culprit (I've never encountered this flavor in my beers
before).  Has anyone out there tried this yeast and have you had similar
experiences with it?
     It is entirely possible that this particular culture that I have is
not representative of the yeast sold by NBS.  Their catalog describes the
yeast as producing a 'clean' profile.  When they shipped my order
(this is an order I made back in November) they did so during Christmas-
New Years time with the result that it was in the hands of UPS for more 
than a week kept under who knows what temperature.  I had to make a number
of attempts to culture from their slants before I got one going.  So it
is possible it could be a freak.  Who knows, it might be a great yeast 
for a wheat beer!  But I'll be keeping it out of my stouts.

Bob Santore,
Syracuse NY
rsantore at mailbox.syr.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 12:28 EDT
From: HOWED at bcvax1.bc.edu
Subject: Chocolate


	Not too long ago, my partner and I created a chocolate wheat beer.  We 
added 3 oz. of chocolate with the boiling hops and another 3 oz. with the 
finishing hops.  This way, we figured we could get an aroma and a good
flavor from the chocolate.  It seemed to work, because we've got a good
beer in the bottle now.

	The one piece of advice we got before using the chocolate was that
there could be an unusual odor in the carbuoys.  We did get soething that
was unusual, but there was no infection, and the finished product is rather
tasty.  From what I understand, you can use less chocolate, anywhere down
to around 2 oz. for a more subtle flavor.  We wanted a more pronounced one,
so we went for [close to] the maximum.

	This addition is supposedly valid for just about any beer recipe.  
Admittedly, I would not find certain combinations palatable to the point that
I would want five gallons of it in my kitchen [Chocolate Chili IPA?], but the
leeway is there.  Enjoy!


HOWED at BCVMS.BC.EDU

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 11:19 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Cannot reach Don and Wally

Don at Tellabs and Wally at akcs:
I can't reach you via email.  Call me at 708-430-HOPS.
Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 12:54:29 -0600 (CST)
From: melby at stolaf.edu (P Eric Melby)
Subject: cancel

Please cancel my subscription to this subgroup.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 10:45:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Feller <thomasf at ursula.ee.pdx.edu>
Subject: Late Reply to the Brass Question

I figured someone else would have made this piont by now but ...

Not to long ago NPR did a story about possible problems with
brass water facuets. It seem some manufacters of brass faucets
still use lead solder in constructing their faucets. The
Calf. EPA has been able to measure lead leaching into the water
when using these faucet when using very hot water. No numbers
were given.

The fellow for the Calf. EPA recomended not using hot water  
from any faucet for cooking and if you have small children
to only use bottled water (how do we know the bottle water is
lead free?)

I think the case for how much lead, where it comes from, and
who is at greatest risk has been clearly stated here in the HBD
so make up your mind on the dangers.

I hope is helps.


 - Tom Feller 



Return to table of contents


Date: 30 Mar 1993 13:05:29 -0600 (CST)
From: SWEENERB at msuvx2.memst.edu
Subject: Help!

Help!

I found out today (Tuesday 3/30) that there will be a local homebrew judging 
on the 16th of April and bottles have to be submitted on the 14th.  My dilemma
is that I have a carboy full of what I hope is pretty damn good porter, but it
is still actively fermenting (about 15 seconds between bubbles) after 6 days. 
I would really like to enter the contest with this brew, so I figured if I give
this batch a couple of more days in the carboy and bottle on the 1st it may be 
ok by the 16th.  Is there anything I can do, however, to speed up the
carbonation process and/or help the yeast to drop out of suspension in the
meantime to remove the green beer taste?  Is there a fining agent which might
help? Any suggestions are welcome--tried and true or completely experimental--
at this point I'll try anything. Thanks in advance.
Bob
  
Bob Sweeney - SWEENERB at MEMSTVX1.BITNET
Memphis State University
Status: Permanent Student
(901) MSU-4210 
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Return to table of contents


Date:         Tue, 30 Mar 93 14:00:27 EST
From: "Mark Rich-mpr8a at acadvm1.uottawa.ca" <MPR8A at acadvm1.uottawa.ca>
Subject:      Dead fermentation

Hello all,

       Brewed a kit beer with a buddy last Sunday; Monday it was fermenting
at a reasonable rate, Tuesday Morning- Nothing. I am a bit disturbed by this.
(not worried, disturbed) We used a full boil, rehydrated the yeast in some of t
he wort set aside at 70f, for a few hours while the 5 gal of wort cooled. The k
it called for 1kg of corn-sugar, we subbed 1 kg light dry m-extract. The origin
al gravity was 1.041, glass primary with blowoff in a 70f room. I guess I shoul
d also mention it was a Brew-Pro, Mexican Lager kit. We plan to take a S.G. rea
ding tonight... Is it possible the beer is fermented-out??? As I am convinced t
hat it is not, any suggestions would be appreciated. Please forgive violation o
f the "Thou shalt not covet kit-beer" commandment. (it was a gift).

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 11:42:38 PST
From: Scott Lord (CompuCom) <v-ccsl at microsoft.com>
Subject: How are your HOP'S?

Went out to weed my hop garden and found that my hops are growing like
gangbusters both of my cascade hops are 15 inches long with 8 vines each and my
 Chinook is 10 inches with 6 vines. It looks like a norther good hop  year.
I got 3LBs of dry hops off them last year. It looks like it is time to 
build the
 hop trellis.


v-ccsl at microsoft

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 13:18 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Belgian aromatic malt/misc questions/

CHUCKM writes:
>and in particular I have seen some mention of Belgium aromatic
>malt. Does anyone know how the 'aromatic' malts differ from
>other non-aromatic malts?

I believe you're refering to the malt that DeWolf-Cosyns makes
that they call "Aromatic."  Basically, it is like Munich malt
in that it is darker than Pilsner or Pale malts but will still
mash itself.  It is roughly 23-28 degrees Lovibond.

***********************
Andy writes:
>          1.   To achieve maximum practical cold-break how quickly and
>          to what temperature must I reduce my wort?

Cold break begins to form at temperatures below 140F.  It has been reported
and I've verified empirically that the quicker you chill it (the more
suddenly the temperature drops) the better the break.

>          2.   I'm intersted in re-using my yeast in order to keep
>          costs down and diminish the time to begin fermentation.  How
>          can I efficiently separate the yeast from protein globs and
>          stray vegetable matter in my troob?

I feel it's better to harvest yeast from the secondary than the primary
since the trub, as you mentioned, settles in the primary.  I have a big
problem with harvesting yeast from the carboys because I dryhop.  Instead,
I make starters and split them in parallel into several batches.  The snag
here is that you need to brew several batches from the same yeast in a
relatively short period.  I have also successfully made starters from
the sediment in my own homebrew, but I've had problems with older bottles
and only do it for one generation to avoid the pitfalls of mutations.

>          3.   I was interested in doing some mail order extract
>          purchases.  I saw one company offering a Wisconsin barley
>          malt from Briess that was cheaper than what I normally pay
>          for Munton & Fison unhopped extract.  Has anyone out there
>          brewed with both of these extracts?  I'm interested in how
>          they compare with each other.

I've used both and I've found that the Northwestern extract tends to
give a slightly higher OG contribution per pound and that it tends to
leave a bit higher FG then the M&F unhopped.
>          4.   When sparging in my extract brews, I filter out the
>          hops as well as hot & cold break proteins and plop the gunk
>          onto some cheese-cloth.  When I'm finished filtering, I
>          squeeze the cheese-cloth to wring out the last liquid back
>          into my wort.  An I screwing up because my "naked" hand is
>          squeezing out the juices?  Am I introducing bacteria as
>          well as skin oils?  How should I be doing this?

"Yes," "yes" and "if you must, boil it again to sanitize.

Dave writes:
>Is there any reason not to just sanitize the hydrometer and drop it into the
>secondary?  It seems to me that it gives less chance for infection than 

I dryhop so it would not work for me,  but I've done this before and there's
no reason that I can see to not do it.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 13:30 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Hunter/Corona vs MaltMill/hop utilization/pasteurization vs filtering

Ulick writes:
>This weekend I wired up my freezer.  Not wanting the damage the
>antique beauty in any way, I mounted the Hunter (heat-cool,
>round, mechanicial model 40005) to a scrap of plywood, and connected
>it to an extension cable coming in.  Anyway, when I turned on the 
>power, she blew.  A bright spark and there was no metal left on the 
>thin wires of the mercury trip switch.

There's a different Hunter, called the Airstat, which is made to control
window air conditioners.  That's the one you want.  No muss, no fuss
and 40F is low enough for me anyway.  Any lower and I think there may
be a risk of freezing bottles near the walls.  The Airstat is digital,
has a remote sensing device and you simply plug your freezer/fridge into
it.

***************************************
Mike writes:
>(for lack of a better term) are made of metal. The rollers themselves
>are grooved; these were probably used in an industrial application and
>required a significant cleaning effort before the author felt
>comfortable about using this device on a food product.

These rollers are custom made for this application and the oil on them
is to keep them from rusting.  Good thinking, you should clean everything
before you put food in it, shouldn't you.
>
>The basic design is manufactured mostly from pressboard, save the name
>placards and the roller assembly.  Structural integrity is provided by a
>total of 8 bolts; two hold the hopper on, two hold the bottom board on,
>and there are bolts at each end of the placards.

Your tone is not coincident with your impartiality.  The "pressboard" is
actually synthetic wood made from recycled milk jugs and is IMHO much
less likely to break than pressboard, plywood or cast metals.
>
>On the adjustable model, one of the placard bolts is replaced by the
>adjustment lock down bolt - which sacrifices whatever structural
>reinforcement the original bolt had to offer.

Sounds impartial to me... NOT.
>
>If this mill were to fall from 5 feet to a cement floor, there would
>undoubtably be irreparable damage.

Mine has fallen 4 feet onto a cement floor and still works fine.
>
>Results:
>
>For 2 # Pale Malt, the Corona produced 42.0 grams flour.
>		   the MaltMill produced 49.5 grams flour.
>
>That's a whopping 20% MORE flour with the MaltMill.
>
>This is significant as I've heard theories that flour content can
>contribute to a stuck sparge; I've also had more sparge problems with
>high flour content milled malts.

You heard wrong.  Pulverized husk material is much more likely to cause
a stuck sparge than any amount of flour.  With proper doughing-in,
flour is not a problem -- it will be converted to sugars which are
soluble.  Flour production should not be an issue when evaluating a mill.
>
>Husks: The husks on the Corona's crush were slightly more damaged than
>on the MaltMill.

I personally feel that this is an understatement, but to me husk damage
should have been second only to thorough crushing of the grain as a
criterion for evaluation of the products.
>
>I leave the reader to interpret the results. Apologies to those whom
>regard this posting as wasted HBD bandwidth.
>
I don't believe it has been a waste of bandwidth, but also it has not been
impartial -- your tone was quite evidently biased against the MaltMill.
You should also have researched stuck sparges a bit more before formulating
your judgement criteria.  On my scorecard, the MaltMill won.

If I sound biased towards the MaltMill, so be it, I feel it deserves to
be defended, and if you haven't noticed, I did not preface my comments
with a statement of impartiality.  I'd like to point out that there
have been several reviews of the MaltMill versus the Corona that have
come up on the side of the MaltMill.  Check the archives... only you and
Roy Rudebusch have written negative reviews -- perhaps Roy's bias is due
to a hundred Coronas gathering dust in his basement -- I don't know for
sure.  I can sell either the Corona or the MaltMill.  My profit margin 
is bigger on the Corona, although I've yet to sell a single one.  It's
designed for making tortilla's for Pete's sake!

*************************
Andy writes:
>               Would someone out there please inform me on calculating
>          the difference in the hop utilization factor for whole leaf
>          vs. hop pellets.  I read these formulas on calculating the
>          IBUs for a given beer, but I have not seen anything that
>          deals with the form of the hop itself, aside from its Alpha
>          value.  It would seem that this would be especially
>          important for hops added near the end of the boil (i.e. for
>          flavor or aroma).

A recent post (I'm not sure which digest) mentioned 20% less utilization
when using whole hops over pellets.  The reason for the difference is
mostly due to the fact that during pelletization, the lupulin glands are
physically ruptured making the Alpha Acids more available.

**************************
Kirk writes:
>pasteurization of beer?  Is there a simple way to tell if a
>beer is pasteurized (I've been told it's obvious in the head)?  

No. There is no way other than to ask or look on the label.

>Why and how is it detrimental to the flavor?

Raising the temperature into the pasteurization range will drive off
aromatics which you would like to keep.  I've heard some say that it
will give the beer a "cooked" flavor, but the only beers that I've
tasted before and after pasteurization was Chicago Brewing Company's
Legacy Lager and Red Ale.  I noticed no categorizable flavor difference.
Note that these beers are flash pasteurized while in a piece of stainless
steel tubing, so perhaps there is no loss of aromatics there either.

>Are all draft beers unpasteurized?

I don't think so -- maybe they are and maybe not.

>Why?

Probably because of the rate at which they are consumed.

>Are all imports unpasteurized?  

Most are but some are not.  Chimay is not.

>Does the cold-filtered process represent a real improvement 
>over pasteurization?

I don't think cold filtering is anything but a shortcut to proper
lagering -- it filters out the chill haze.

>What do they filter out anyway that would shorten the shelf-life?

Flavor?  Body?  No, seriously, sterile filtration filters out bacteria,
but also much of the small proteins that give beer body and head retention.

>What would happen if megabrews were not pasteurized?

It would not change my buying habits.

>Who's buried in Grant's tomb?

Grant and his wife.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 15:11:54 -0500
From: bradley at adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley)
Subject: Results!  Zymurgy special issues.

More than a week ago, I posted asking for peoples' opinions on
Zymurgy special issues.  I got 11 responses, as welll as mail
from others asking me to post a summary.  Well, here it is:

                        Recommended
                         or Highly     Somewhat   Negative or No    Do
                        Recommended  Recommended  Recommendation  Not Own
                        -----------  -----------  --------------  -------

85 All-grain                 3           4             1             2
86 Malt Extract              0           1             5             4
87 Troubleshooting           2           1             5             2
88 Brewers & Gadgets         0           0             7             3
89 Yeast                     8           3             0             0
90 Hops & Beer               8           1             1             0
91 Beer Styles               1           2             6             1
92 Gadgets & Equip't         4           1             5             0

To be fair, "no recommendation" is not as bad as a negative comment.
However, if someone has all the issues and just lists the ones he
finds useful, that's an implicit criticism of the others.  There
some guesswork going on here.  If he didn't mention whether he owned
it or not, I tried to figure it out from context.  So take the last
two colummns as approximate; I stand by their the total of the 2 in
each case, but may be off in the particulars.  NB the 1989 line adds
to 11, the others all to 10.  That's because one respondent simply
said he thought the Yeast issue was good and offered no other opinion.

There are some clear trends here: Yeast and Hops are pretty much
universally liked, Malt Extract and Gadgets '88 are out of the
running.  Opinion is divided on the others.  Once again, the
15% discount deal is on 85 and 87-91 as a set.  Maybe this is
a ruse by AHA to get rid of their inventory of 88 as a freebie
to those who want 85, 87 and 89-91 anyway?

Selected comments
- -----------------

85 All-grain: "...a good issue if you're an all-grainer, although a
    bit of the information seems old now"  "...old, more information
    is available in other books."
 
86 Malt Extract: "Obsolete, for the most part."

87 Troubleshooting: "Moderately useful, especially if you're judging."
     "IMHO the only valuable issues are this, hops and yeast."

88 Brewers & Gadgets: "...a real dog...When they sent me the '88 I
    decided to let my membership lapse."

89 Yeast: "A must-have.  Top-flight scientific data and advice."
    "There's good info in there."

90 Hops & Beer: "SUPERB! Well worth having!"  "indespensable"

91 Beer Styles: "Infuriating."  "Absolutely the most valuable.
    A very good reference."

92 Gadgets & Equip't: "Good, especially if you're a gadgeteer."
   "<Yawn!> Not much there."

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 15:36:31 -0500 (EST)
From: David C Mackensen <cygnus at unh.edu>
Subject: what to do with used grain bill

Well, I was wondering, what to do with the spent grain bill... so I
was thinking...

What if I were to put the spent grain bill into the primary?
any additional sugars that might have been left over can be used for
fermentation/taste (depending upon complexity)...

I know that it will probably introduce extra gunk into my beer that
might induce chill hazing or whatever, but, in a dark beer?  I don't
think it'll matter much...

I just hate to see all that grain to down the drain :)

any other ideas? I've heard about making bread out of it, but I don't
think that might be feasble for me.. :(  but who knows :)

One problem that I can foresee is the soaking up of my beer into the
grain????

comments please...

thanks,
 -chris
 .-- 
David (Chris) Mackensen	        cygnus at unh.edu         puck at unh.edu
dcm2 at kepler.unh.edu, dcm2 at bifur.unh.edu		I am the Time Daemon
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
"Hi... My name is Hobbes.  I'm the product of a malicious 6-year old's
twisted and destructive imagination.  Would YOU like to be my friend?"

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 15:48:06 -0500 (EST)
From: David C Mackensen <cygnus at unh.edu>
Subject: oh yeah (Re: what to do...)

What does the HBD think about just pouring a can of DARK malt (liquid)
into the primary before pitching (and of course, mixing it up REALLY
well)...

comments please:

 -chris
 .-- 
David (Chris) Mackensen
dcm2 at kepler.unh.edu, dcm2 at bifur.unh.edu		I am the Time Daemon

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 13:02:26 PST
From: Scott Lord (CompuCom) <v-ccsl at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE:Questions



>From: "Anderson_Andy"
><Anderson_Andy%55W3.CCBRIDGE.SEAE.mrouter at seaa.navsea.navy.mil>
>Subject: Questions

>To achieve maximum practical cold-break how quickly and to what temperature
>must I reduce my wort?

Try to get it down to 60~70 F

>I'm interested in re-using my yeast in order to keep costs down and diminish
>the time to begin fermentation.  How can I efficiently separate the yeast from
>protein globs and stray vegetable matter in my troob?

Save only the yeast slurry from your secondary fermenter..

>When sparging in my extract brews, I filter out the hops as well as hot & cold
>break proteins and plop the gunk onto some cheese-cloth.  When I'm finished
>filtering, I squeeze the cheese-cloth to wring out the last liquid 
back into my
>wort.  An I screwing up because my "naked" hand is squeezing out the juices?
>Am I introducing  bacteria as well as skin oils?  How should I be doing this?

First put your hop in a cheese-cloth bag when you boil your wort then pull the
 hop bags out before you cool and put them in a stainless steel bowl and use
 another stainless steel bowl on top to press out the wort and put it back in
 the kettle then cool it and siphon off the trub. you will lose about a 1/2 to
 1 quart from hot and cold brake.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 15:40 EST
From: LYONS at adc1.adc.ray.com
Subject: Flaked barley as a specialty grain.

Thank you for the replys about the question of using flaked
barley as a specialty grain.  It appears that using flaked
barley adds a creamy mouth feel and improves the head.  Some
people use flaked barley with all beer styles.  Recommendations
on the amount ranged from 5 ozs to 1/2lb for a 5 gallon batch. 
It was also stated that flaked barley can be found at food co-ops 
under "rolled" barley at a significantly lower price than from 
your local homebrew supplier.

Thank you!
Chris

Return to table of contents


Date: Tuesday, 30 March 93 19:59:57 CST
From: LLROW at utxdp.dp.utexas.edu
Subject: TEXAS-SCHELL COMPETITION

I don't know if this has been posted yet but:

"A homebrewer's dream come true!  Almost everyone who has brewed a batch
of beer in their kitchen or garage has thought, 'Gee, this beer is so
wonderful, wouldn't it be great if I could sell this stuff!'  Well
homebrewers, here's your big chance!"

So says the intro to this competition sponsored by the August-Schell
Brewing Co.in New Ulm, Minnesota.  Here's a rundown of the particulars:

What:  1993 Texas-Schell Open Homebrew Competition
       Two bottles per entry (Max. 4 per person)
       Catagories:  None (except no 'novelty'/fruit beers)
       Entry Fee:  None (Schell and C.R. Goodman Co. covers it.)

Ingredients:
      "Schell uses domestic grains, so we prefer that you do too.
       Extract recipies will be converted to all-grain equivalents.
       Either domestic or import hops ok.  If you are brewing an ale,
       they prefer that you use a dry ale yeast (really!), as they will
       most likely be using either Windsor or Nottingham ale yeast.  If
       you are making a lager, we suggest Wyeast #2035 which is, co-
       incidentally, Schell's own strain!  Alcoholic content should be
       a minimum of 4% by weight (5% by vol.) as they wish to bottle the
       beer in 22 oz. 'big-boys' and in Texas that means that it must be
       an "ale" or "malt liquor" (ie. over 4%/5%).

Who:   Any homebrewer residing in Texas
When:  Entry deadline is 4pm Saturday June 5.  The contest will be held
       the following weekend, 1pm Sunday June 13.

Where: Send entries to:  Texas-Schell Competition
                         c/o DeFalco's Home wine & Beer supplies
                         5611 Morningside Drive
                         Houston, TX 77005

       To be held at:    C.R. Goodman Companies
                         3430 Yale
                         Houston, TX 77018

They plan to use the winning recipe for an actual commercially produced
August Schell beer to be sold nation-wide.  Also in the works are plans
to fly the winner up to New Ulm for the brewing of the inaugural batch.
Sounds a bit like the Pete's Wicked Ale competition eh?

have at it.
steve














Return to table of contents


Date: 30 Mar 1993 22:40:03 -0500 (EST)
From: RADAMSON at delphi.com
Subject: Beer Balls

In 1108, M.Galloway asks about beer balls.  I started to get into them
several years ago, but abruptly stopped using due to leakage problems.
I had the portable type from Fritz in Pottsdam, NY using an EDME tap for
CO2 cartridges.  The tap leaked like a sieve.  The balls were great for 
a single event, the tap would hold and a cartridge or two would suffice. But
any longer just wouldn't cut it.  

Randy at Brew Ha-Ha in Pottstown, PA had success with the "regulator" tap
system for the balls.  He and I both are, however, head-over-heels giddy
about 5 liter kegging.  You know, those 5 l Dink and other German draft cans.
These things are perfect for Non Don Cornelious Keggers.  Holds 10 pints of
your favorite draft in the kitchen fridge.  The key is the CO2 cartridge
adjustable pressure bottom-feed tap for these guys.  Fits both small and large
size CO2 carts.  

I do have a question tho...  Is there a difference between the ISO CO2 carts
and a pack of Crossman CO2 chargers from the Kmart counter?  Is this what's
termed "Industrial CO2"?

Thanks,  and   Brew On.

Richard Adamson,  Brewer, Patriot, Steelers Fan!

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1109, 03/31/93