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


Contents:
  Hunter update, spent grain (Ulick Stafford)
  Jockey Box and *FOAM* ("Wayde Nie, Eng.Phys. II")
  RE: Questions (""Robert C. Santore"")
  Whitbread yeast (Mike Rego)
  5 liter Kegs (RADAMSON)
  re:quick ferments & conditioning (Jim Busch)
  Style snobs (NOT!) ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  maple beer (John Edens)
  "Samiclaus" aka strongest beer in world, for now? (Andrew Lickly)
  Test Drive (Jack Schmidling)
  Re:immersion cooler length (Sherman Gregory)
  Subject:      ICE BEER is here (John Adams)
  YEAST CULTURES ("William A Kitch")
  AHA Sanctioned Competition - second posting (wauts at cec" <ceco!CWEMAIL!WAUTS at uunet.UU.NET>
  Beer Balls/ 5L minikegs (atl)
  king Kooker (Roy Rudebusch)
  king Kooker (roy.rudebusch)
  schwarzbier (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
  Sediment ("Thomas Gilks" )
  Legality of Mailing Homebrew (Troy Howard)
  Grain Mills (Kenneth Haney)
  Iodophor (Lee=A.=Menegoni)
  Manitoba Brewers (Phil Hultin)
  ICE BEER IS ALREADY HERE (Phil Hultin)
  That "Styles" Issue (Martin A. Lodahl)
  Yeast Culturing Equipment (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
  Using Sulphites (Mike Lemons)
  1993 AHA NATIONAL HOMEBREW COMPETITION (Bob Gorman)


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: Wed, 31 Mar 93 19:27:58 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick at bernini.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Hunter update, spent grain

I would like to update my Hunter post in 1107.  I have been informed
that a Hunter Airstat is what is normally used.  Its main use is controlling
windowe air conditioners and so can easily handle Freezer loads.  It
is simply plugged in and the freezer plugged into it.  I don't know
how available they are.  I didn't see one in any hardware stores but now 
that the seasons are changing they may become available.

BUt to update my description of how to use the regular heat/cool home 
thermostat.  I found the 9V battery to be useless for running the relay.
It seemed to go flat in a day (and I thought relay loads were low!).
I replaced iot with an old 9V power supply that I had lying around.
6V will also do it, and maybe there would be no problem with a 120VAC relay.
Otherwise I am now very pleased with the performance.  I like the simple way
of adjusting the range.  I have been informed that a method for modifying 
the thermistor based airstat with a resistor was posted a while back, and
this would seem to be a less complicated approach than mine.  But hey, if
you can't get an airstat, this is an alternative.

David Mackensen asked about spent grain.  The best thing is to feed it
to livestock, if you know a farmer nearby.  You can use a little in bread,
but it usually ends up a little solid.  Or do what I do, compost it.  It
makes a fine mulchy compost, especially if you forget about it and leave it
rotting in your cooler for a week before dumping it :-)
__________________________________________________________________________
 'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s at &* ...  | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng.  
    Pabst Blue Ribbon!'               | Notre Dame IN 46556
                                      |    ulick at bach.helios.nd.edu   


Return to table of contents


Date: 31 Mar 1993 20:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Wayde Nie, Eng.Phys. II" <9106857 at SSCvax.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Subject: Jockey Box and *FOAM*


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 21:53:39 -0500
From: ""Robert C. Santore"" <rsantore at mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: RE: Questions

In HBD number 1108 Andy Anderson asks:      
 >        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?

Andy, if there is anything true about homebrewers it is that we all 
have our own ways of doing things and the ultimate test of our practices
is the quality of the beer we make.  However, having never tasted your
beers, I would object to this practice of yours on two grounds.  The first
is certainly the increased chance of contamination that you bring up.  I 
hope you at least sterilize the cheese cloth by boiling.  The second 
objection I would make is that once you've gone through all the trouble 
to filter trub out of your wort, you want it to stay out!  The couple of
ounces of extra wort that you can obtain by pressing the trub is probably
not worth introducing trub into your fermenter.  My advice it to not do
it at all!

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 21:50 EST
From: Mike Rego <MREGO1 at vax.clarku.edu>
Subject: Whitbread yeast

The recent discussion concerning Whitbread yeast has caught my
interest.  At the end of February I brewed a porter using dry
Whitbread Ale yeast.  It was a 12 gram packet with a serial
number of 020412 stamped on the back.  I bought it along with
my other ingredients the day before brewing.

I did not have any trouble with this yeast during the ferment,
and the resulting brew is lovely.

Still being new to this, I have not yet tried a liquid yeast.
Almost everything I've read talks of Wyeast.  How is that name
pronounced, and is it the best?

By the way, I just finished a bottle of Sam Adams Cream Stout.
It has a distinct flavor that is hard to describe.  A slight
suggestion of burned popcorn?  After a few bottles it becomes
a familiar signature - kind of like the Guinness sour tang.

Mike Rego
Amherst, New Hampshire

Return to table of contents


Date: 01 Apr 1993 01:39:34 -0500 (EST)
From: RADAMSON at delphi.com
Subject: 5 liter Kegs



I received several inquiries regarding the 5 liter metal keg setups. Here's
what I know:

The problem with getting the Dink, et.al. cans from the stores is that the tap 
they sell you for $2.00 is a gravity tap that you insert in bung, flop the keg
upside down and 'can-open' a hole in what was the bottom (and now on top).
Certainly makes the vessel non-recyclable.

The solution is these bottom-feed CO2 cartridge taps made by Beer*King in
Germany.  I originally got my tap(s) from Hoster Brewery (brewpub) in 
Columbus, OH - but they no longer 'keg' into 5 liter cans (and, therefore, 
don't sell the taps anymore).  Dock Street Brewery in Philly kegs into 5 liter
cans, but I'm not sure about the type of tap they sell.  Stoudt's in 
Adamstown, PA likewise.

A source that I do know of (and have no affiliation with) for both taps and 
empty kegs is:

   Randy Martin, Proprieter
   Brew Ha Ha, Ltd.
   209 High St
   Pottstown, PA 19464
   800-243-2620 (orders)
   215-326-2620 (Dr. Brew)
   
Randy picked up a bunch of kegs from the now defunct State College Brewery 
(Penn State) and could probably set you up.
   
The tap has a central stem the height of the can which feeds brew from the 
bottom.  There may be a small yeast burst in the first couple ounces of 
brew/foam when first tapping, but none whatsoever afterwards.  The tap also
has an adjustable CO2 valve that I "tweak-up" a little at a time to intro-
duce more gas - you can hear it enter and build up a bit, then back it off
to zero.  I put more gas on for overnight storage, haven't had any leaking.

As far as kegging these guys go, I have usually filled a couple 3 kegs 
along with a couple dozen bottles.  And to keep it simple, I still bulk
prime with either DME (.50 cup) or Corn Sugar (.75 cup) and just fill them
as I go along.  Use your own standard priming rate, mine are low-to-fair
carbonation level (British Ales, mostly).  Since the volume is larger than
that of each bottle, the maturation time is increased (takes longer to
reach carbonation), but is well worth it.  Handling and storage is the same
as if they were bottles.  The 5 liter is equivalent to about 14 12oz bottles 
 - but it goes in the fridge better.

For Sanitizing, I just drop a few tbls of Bbrite in, fill and soak for a
couple hours prior to kegging.  So far the hardest part about these is
forcing the bung in after I fill the keg.  I think I've been filling to
high - I'm going to be leaving about a 1" head space next time.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 9:16:11 EST
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: re:quick ferments & conditioning

"John C. Post" <jpost@ llnl.gov> writes:
<Nope...and anybody who tells you otherwise is full of it. Some things just 
<can't be rushed...You could jack it around and bottle early, but it wouldn't 
<be the great beer you started out making...


I have discussed this offline with in more detail with John, but let
me say this attitude is utter nonsense. I have brewed several beers 
that were online 2 weeks from brew day.  The key is tons of clean yeast 
that flocculates well, and sometimes cold conditioning followed by
forced carbonation.  Filtering is an obvious solution.

Many many brewpubs making ales require 11 days from brewday to the 
first tapping.  I have tasted many 11 day beers that were fine.

Good brewing,
Jim Busch



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 10:18:12 EST
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu>
Subject: Style snobs (NOT!)

"Spencer W. Thomas" writes:
 > Those who try to brew true to style (for competition or otherwise),
 > and those who just brew what they like.

Reading this today, the word "just" jumps out at me.  I certainly
don't mean to imply that brewing what you like is in any way inferior
to trying to brew to style.  (Are we getting paranoid about flames
here, or what?-)

=S

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:32:32 -0600 (CST)
From: John Edens <johne at sa-htn.valmet.com>
Subject: maple beer

Has anyone out there made a beer using maple syurp as an adjunct like
Papazian describes? If so, how did it come out and how much did you use?

John



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 10:40:50 -0500
From: andrew at ftp.com (Andrew Lickly)
Subject: "Samiclaus" aka strongest beer in world, for now?


Recently I toured the brewery of the Boston Beer Company, the makers
of Sam Adams.  It was not terribly interesting, but it was cheap, a
$1 donation, and the beer was fresh and free.  Basically, I would
highly recommend it.

During the tour, they bragged about being in the process of
developing a "Triple Bock", apparently it is Jim Koch's goal 
to get the world record for the highest alcohol content in a
commercialized "malt beverage".

Andrew
- --
                
 "Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own
  understanding."


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 09:44 CST
From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Test Drive

 
 >From: Mike Deliman <miked at wrs.com>
 
 Just a few comments on this review...
 
 > 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.
 
 The rollers were designed by me and custom fabricated for use in MALTMILLS.  
 They are brand new and any oil or other foreign matter is a result of the 
 manufacturing process.  They are vigorously wiped before assembly but a film 
 of oil remains as a rust preservative and some lint from the rag might also 
 remain..
 
 >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.
 
 Nothing is sacrificed as the screw's only purpose is to hold the panel in 
 place.
 
 >If this mill were to fall from 5 feet to a cement floor, there would
 undoubtedly be irreparable damage.
 
 Damage, possibly, but not likely irreparable.  The most probable damage would 
 be to the easily replaceable particle board base.
 
 >The MaltMill was adjusted to just where it would not allow malt to go
 through uncrushed.  Aside from husk material and flour, the crush was
 nearly indistinguishable from that of the Corona.
 
 That is not hard to understand because it is not the correct way to set up a 
 roller mill.  The MM is designed to be operated with a nominal roller spacing 
 of .055" and the adjustable models are shipped set, at that spacing.
 
 What you did to it was to make sure it could not possible produce a proper 
 crush.  The adjustable feature is there only for very minor changes required 
 to optomize feeding when motorized.
 
 >The MaltMill has the possibility of passing a few uncrushed kernels
 through while still producing significant flour.
 
 With the current model (yours) it is impossible to pass grain uncrushed 
 through the rollers if properly set up or with the standard spacing.  Unless, 
 of course, you have malt less than .055" in thickness.  On earlier models, it 
 was possible for some to get around the rollers but this has been corrected.
 
 Furthermore, your statements contradict each other.  If you "adjusted to just 
 where it would not allow malt to go through uncrushed" then by definition, 
 you would not be "passing a few uncrushed kernels through".  You have the 
 procedure right, you just didn't follow it.
 
 Secondly, as has been pointed out by several users, the benign nature of a 
 roller mill frequently crushes the grain but leaves the husk so entirely in 
 tact that it appears to be uncrushed.  However, upon teasing apart, is found 
 to be thouroughly crushed.
 
 >After milling, the grain was sifted, and the resulting flour was weighed
 on a counterbalance (accurate to within .02 grams).
 
 The key here is, the nature of the "sifted".  That may sound like a nice 
 general term but in brewing science it is meaningless unless we know the mesh 
 size.
 
 According to Noonan, "flour" is defined as that which passes through a 100 
 mesh screen.  I received no response when I asked you what mesh you used.
 
 Furthermore, for up to about 10% of the total grist, flour so defined is 
 considered beneficial.  Beyond 10%, it COULD be a problem but that depends on 
 the lauter system used and most importantly on the amount of husk material in 
 the grist.
 
 I hate to sound like a broken record, but the flour phobia derives from the 
 problems created by grinding malt in mills like the Corona.  It is a simple 
 fact of physics and chemistry that the finer the crush, the more efficient 
 will be the starch conversion and sugar extraction.
 
 The problem with grinders, i.e. devices with a moving surface working against 
 a fixed surface, is that they damage the husk to the extent that the 
 effectiveness of the filter bed can be seriously weakened.  This can be 
 compensated for by a coarse grind but it is a compromise, the price of which 
 is overall efficiency.
 
 As a roller mill only squeezes the malt, the impact on the husk material is 
 trivial, resulting in the ability to mash and sparge with far larger 
 proportions of fine grist, including flour.
 
 It just so happens that expensive commercial mills, with multiple rollers and 
 sieving devices can create more fine grist that the MM.  But the MM is also a 
 compromise, to keep the cost within the range of homebrewers' budgets.
 
 >That's a whopping 20% MORE flour with the MaltMill.
 
 Thank you but let's not confuse that with percentage of total grist.
 
 >Husks: The husks on the Corona's crush were slightly more damaged than
 on the MaltMill.
 
 That is probably enough to make the previous statement good news.  However, 
 the problem here is that you can only compare the husks that are left large 
 enough to see.  The ones that are pulverized and turned into dust by the 
 Corona are not obvious to a casual inspection.  You have to microscopically 
 examine the fine grist to see it.  This is not an easy thing to quantify and 
 even I gave up trying.  I just sort of rest on the intuitive notion that 
 squeezing has got to be better than grinding.
 
 >Unmilled kernels: the MaltMill had a higher ratio of unmilled
 kernels; we did not see any unmilled kernels with the Corona.
 
 Again, the MM was improperly set up and I would be most interested in hearing 
 from you after you try it again.  The adjustment is only on one side, so if 
 you set it so the rollers look parallel, you will be close enough.  You can 
 also use a dime as a gauge that is pretty close to the nominal.   You can 
 also set it so that it almost touches on the adjustable side and more closely 
 simulate the .020" spacing of multi-roller commercial mills.  However, you 
 may have some trouble turning the crank.
 
 Or you can return the mill and your money will be cheerfully refunded.
 
 js


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 08:42:04 -0800
From: sherman at qualcomm.com (Sherman Gregory)
Subject: Re:immersion cooler length

>Does anyone know about the minimum length of copper tubing that
>can be used as an immersion wort cooler? Successfully.

The longer the better.  Many of then are 20', some are 25', mine is a 50'
double helix (homemade).  It all depends how fast you want to cool and how
cool your tap water is, and how much water you want to use.  Maybe one of
the thermo-scientists out there can come up with a cool cooling equation
relating d(temp)/d(time) to length, tubing size, flow rate and tap water
temp.  Of course some heat is disipated out the side of the pot, so cooling
will be faster than this equtation says.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 09:45:35 -0700
From: John Adams <j_adams at hpfcjca.sde.hp.com>
Subject: Subject:      ICE BEER is here

Sounds basically the same as Eisenboch which translates into an "Ice Bock."

The beer is frozen as so that the water can be removed thus leaving a more 
potent liquid behind.  Typically Eisenbochs are much higher in alcohol 
content than what Labatt is producing. 

I have, in need of a quick chilling process, placed beers in the freezer
and, inadvertantly, created a ice brew.  Hmmmm, maybe I should trademark
my process!! 


John Adams

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 11:05:52 CST  
From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: YEAST CULTURES

I read Jack Schmidling's posts re subject and had some questions.

I've been culturing my own yeasty beasties for a few months now.
Generally following procedures similar to those outlined by Jack.
So far things have worked well but I live in fear of mutations and/or
wield yeast contanimations.  Questions are:

  I don't get isolated colonines on my plates, rather one big long smear
  of yeast where I've dragged the innoculating loop.  How can I innoculate
  so I get isolated colonies?  I suppose I could dilute by yeast sorce
  (usu bottle dregs or secondary dregs) but that add just another
  contamination risk.

  I understand some yeast cultures are actually combinations of several
  strains (eg whitbread).  Will I see all three of the whitbread strains
  as different looking colonies?  Do I have to culture each of the strains
  seperately?  What about yeast from Trappist ale which I understand
  actually contain some bacteria important to the flavor produced?

  I've heard that even if I get a good pure culture on a slant
  it will mutate and I can only use yeast from a given slant for a few
  months?  Is this true?  Is there a way to identify mutatants besides
  brewing a batch an looking for strange behavior such as low final s.g?

  Finally, I'd to take a look at these marvelous little creatures who
  work so hard to ferment my wort for me.  (Kinda like to say hi.)  I've
  got a pretty decent optical microscope if I can figure out what box it's
  in.  Any suggestions on preparing a sample for viewing?  Reflected light,
  transmitted light?  What power do I need to see these folks?  Can I
  recognize mutations this way?
WAK
|- William A Kitch                          (512) 471-4929 -|
|- Geotechnical Engineering                                -|
|- ECJ 9.227                                               -|
|- Univ of Texas at Austin, TX 78712-1076                  -|

Return to table of contents


Date: 01 Apr 1993 09:54:09 GMT
From: "Tom Stolfi(wauts at cec" <ceco!CWEMAIL!WAUTS at uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: AHA Sanctioned Competition - second posting

******************************************************************************
** This is the second posting for the competition, anyone interested should **
** contact me ASAP for entry forms and information. Any judges available    **
** to judge on April 23 or 24 in Kenosha, WI please contact me for info.    **
******************************************************************************

The BIDAL SOCIETY OF KENOSHA is holding their 7th Annual Regional Homebrew
Competition April 23 & 24, 1993.  This competition is open to all
homebrewers and awards will be presented in all categories (categories will
be combined only if the number of entries for a style are insufficient
to judge the category as independent).  Last year's competition received over
200 entries .  All homebrews will be evaluated by BJCP and
experienced judges(please contact if you are interested in judging).  This
competition is part of the 1993 MIDWEST BREWER OF THE YEAR series.  All
entries must be received by April 16, 1993. For further information email
your request to WAUTS at CECO.CECO.COM

Tom

ps.  Our company is switching from uunet to an active internet link, if the
     above address bounces try the old on, wauts at cwemail.ceco.com.

Return to table of contents

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 93 09:39:37 -0800
From: atl at kpc.com
Subject: Beer Balls/ 5L minikegs

  Sorry about the aborted message on yesterdays digest.  I was wondering if
anyone knew a source for the 5L minikegs without having to drink expensive
commercial beer.

	Drew

Return to table of contents


Date: 	Thu,  1 Apr 93 10:03:00 -0640
From: roy.rudebusch at travel.com (Roy Rudebusch)
Subject: 	king Kooker

From: roy.rudebusch at travel.com
Subject: king Kooker

If you own a propane fired King Kooker or a Cajun Heater that produces
too much soot the orifice may be drilled to large.

Contrary to the manufacture's opinion 3/32" is too big. A more
efficient size is 1/16".

To fix, remove the end cap, plug the orifice with a sheet metal screw,
move over to the next facet, drill a new hole of the proper size,
cut off the end of the pipe if the new orifice closes.

Fire away,

r

 * OLX 2.2 * Without question aids is a homosexual disease

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 11:10:31 -0700 (MST)
From: walter at lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
Subject: schwarzbier

Howdy brewers,
	I am looking for an all-grain recipe for a schwarzbier.  Charlie P
	has a recipe in a past World of Worts column, but it is extract.  I
	am new to the all-grain world and haven't the experience in going
	about converting or creating recipes.  So, I am looking for someone
	who has made a schwarzbier before.  Thanks.  

	Good Day,
	-Brian

Brian J Walter            |Science, like nature, must also be tamed|  Relax,
Chemistry Graduate Student|with a view towards its preservation.   |Don't Worry
Colorado State University |Given the same state of integrity, it   |  Have A
walter at lamar.colostate.edu|will surely serve us well. -N. Peart    | Homebrew!

Return to table of contents


Date:         1 Apr 93 14:16:35 AST
From: "Thomas Gilks" <TGILKS at brhs.cogs.ns.ca>
Subject:      Sediment

    I do not have the patience or knowledge to make beer as most of
you guys do, so I buy malt extracts from the can and make it that
way. I enjoy the beer I make except for one thing- the sediment at
the bottom of the bottle. I used to use a primary and secondary
fermenter, but now I use just one ordinary pail with a lid and
airlock, and I get better results. The beer mix I use is John Bull
Pilsner Light. I don't know if you can get this type in the U.S.A.,
but it makes a beer that tastes better than Labatts Blue. Do any of
you more experienced beer makers know any tips on getting less
sediment on the bottom of the bottle?

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 12:43:09 PST
From: troy at scubed.scubed.com (Troy Howard)
Subject: Legality of Mailing Homebrew


Eric Wade <ericwade at CLASS.ORG> says:

>Section 124.42 of the U.S. Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual prohibits
>the mailing of _taxable_ alcoholic beverages.  However, homebrew, up to
>certain quantities is not taxable.  Authority 27 CFR sections 25.195 -
>25.207, 26 USC 5053.

I don't doubt this is true, but there must be more to it than that.  One of
the gifts I got for my wedding was a membership in a wine club.  Every month
two bottles of wine arrived in the mail.  Wine is certainly taxable
(oh, BTW, this was commercial wine I was receiveing).  Now, I do not
remember whether I got it by US Postal or by UPS or what.  Would this make
a difference?

In addition, I understand there is an analogous club for beer.  How do we
reconcile these seeming disparities?

Troy (supplying another data point)

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 15:28:35 MST
From: haney at soul.ampex.com (Kenneth Haney)
Subject: Grain Mills


Hi all,

   I've noticed that there are alot of people that have bought the
Malt Mill lately (previosly using Corona). So I was wondering if 
any of you would like to sell your old Corona Mill?? I would 
prefer to buy a Malt Mill but I can't justify it on my limited
budget. (Wife, 4kids, 2dogs, 1cat and some fish) ha

   So if anyone is willing to get rid of one, please drop me a 
line.

Thanks
Ken
haney at ampex.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu,  1 Apr 93 17:39:15 EST
From: Lee=A.=Menegoni at nectech.com
Subject: Iodophor

Is the sanitizer Iodophor (sp?) harmful to septic systems?


Return to table of contents


Date:    Thu, 1 Apr 1993 17:48 EST
From: Phil Hultin <HULTINP at QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>
Subject: Manitoba Brewers

To any HBDers in Manitoba:  Are there brewpubs or micros in Manitoba?
What is the legal situation about brewing etc there?  Any good
places to go in Winnipeg?  Email please.  P.

Return to table of contents


Date:    Thu, 1 Apr 1993 17:50 EST
From: Phil Hultin <HULTINP at QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>
Subject: ICE BEER IS ALREADY HERE

Ontario drinkers have been able to get Niagara Falls Brewing's
Eisbock for several seasons now.  It is noticeably strong, and
can be very tasty.  However, I have noted that the quality does
tend to vary a bit, and this Christmas, a gathering at the pub
C'est What in Toronto (where it was on tap) was decidedly
unimpressed with it.

I would say that this Johnny-come-lately is probably indeed a
marketing gimmick.  The Big Two are unlikely to come up with
much of interest these days.  Cheers, P.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 16:44:02 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah at PacBell.COM>
Subject: That "Styles" Issue

In HOMEBREW Digest #1110, Spencer W. Thomas, without warning or
provocation, suggested:

> Rob Bradley writes:
>  > 91 Beer Styles: "Infuriating."  "Absolutely the most valuable.
>  >     A very good reference."
>
> You know, I wonder if this reflects the dichotomy between those who
> try to brew true to style (for competition or otherwise), and those
> who just brew what they like.  One member of our club hates
> competitions because of the focus on style -- he says "... this is a
> good beer, I don't care if it's too/not enough (hoppy, malty, fruity,
> whatever) for style X/Y/Z.  I like it."

Normally, Spencer, I'd be inclined to agree.  We have the same
disagreements in my club, and they occur here and in other
electronic fora with some regularity, but in this instance I think
the cause is a bit different.  I may have been the one to offer the
"infuriating" comment, and I'm about as committed to styles as
anyone you're likely to meet.  My criticism of that issue is not of
its premise, but of its content.  Some of the sections are quite
good.  Some are not.  And no apparent attempt was made to reconcile
the style descriptions in that issue with those of the AHA Nationals,
an appalling oversight which has been a freaking pain to deal with,
I'll tell you!  Contestants and judges like get in wrangles over
which set of criteria to use, since both are published
by the AHA.  The Official Answer, of course, is that if it's the
Nationals, then ignore Zymurgy and go with the style descriptors
published along with the contest rules, also in Zymurgy (confusingly
enough).  I'm still surprised that this was allowed to happen.  In
my view, the value of the material presented wasn't commensurate
with the trouble it's caused.  Just my opinion ...

= Martin A. Lodahl   			Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst =
= malodah at Pacbell.COM          Sacramento, CA           916.972.4821 =
= If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me!  8-)   =


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 19:25:30 -0700 (MST)
From: walter at lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
Subject: Yeast Culturing Equipment

Howdy!
	I am looking for some places to get the basic equipment needed to start
	a yeast bank, i.e. test tubes, flasks, etc.  I have looked through most
	of the catalogs around the chem department here, but the pricing is 
	obviously geared for schools and corporations who will pay the higher
	prices.  Any good cheap mail order places out there?

	Good Day,
	-Brian

Brian J Walter            |Science, like nature, must also be tamed|  Relax,
Chemistry Graduate Student|with a view towards its preservation.   |Don't Worry
Colorado State University |Given the same state of integrity, it   |  Have A
walter at lamar.colostate.edu|will surely serve us well. -N. Peart    | Homebrew!

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 01 Apr 93 18:20:10 PST
From: mikel at netlink.cts.com (Mike Lemons)
Subject: Using Sulphites

I have used a solution of potassium metabisulfite to sanitize all of
my brewing equipment for many years.  I recently read that it is
ineffective, that it does not release enough SO2 to do the job. 
Considering the pain inflicted on my nasal passages by this stuff, I
find it hard to believe that any microbe could withstand such an
onslaught.

Is there any scientific proof for the claim that sulfites don't
work?  The enormous advantage of using sulfites is that no rinsing
is required.  It seems to me that re-contaminating something with
rinse water, after you sanitize it, totally defeats the purpose of
sanitation!

Chlorine and iodine must be rinsed out because they will impart bad
flavors to the beer, but sulfites are essentially tasteless.
(Otherwise people would have stopped drinking wine long ago -- the
stuff is full of it.)  Sulfites protect beer from oxidation to some
degree.  Commercial yeasts are usually bred to have some sulfite
tolerance. (Which I encourage by exposing them to it from day one.)

I don't like the idea of baking bottles because of the thermal stress
to the glass. (They're not even Pyrex, and they get repeatedly
pressurized and depressurized.)

I have a plastic bottle tree with a squirter attachment that is fast
and convenient for sanitizing bottles.  Because of the way that the
bottles drain, it leaves a white residue under the bottle caps,
though.  Maybe if I lowered the sulfite concentration to 1% . . .

- --                    
INTERNET:  mikel at netlink.cts.com (Mike Lemons)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!mikel
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 23:11:21 EST
From: bob at rsi.com (Bob Gorman)
Subject: 1993 AHA NATIONAL HOMEBREW COMPETITION

                  1993 AHA NATIONAL HOMEBREW COMPETITION

 -------------->       FIRST ROUND - EASTERN REGION       <--------------

                      JUDGE AND STEWARD REGISTRATION

                   June 5th & 6th - Kingston, New York


Dear Fellow Beer Enthusiast,

     The 1993 AHA National Homebrew Competition is right around the corner. 
     Preparations are already under way to make this a successful event, but
     we need your help.  This year we anticipate over 800 entries from the
     New England/Mid-Atlantic region.  This means that we need a lot of help
     unpacking and registering entries, and more importantly judging them.

     This year the judging will be held at the Woodstock Brewing Company in 
     Kingston, New York thanks to the graciousness of Nat Collins, Owner and
     Brewmaster.  Dates for unpacking are May 15, 16 and 22.  Judging will be
     on June 5 and 6, with two sessions on the 5th and one on the 6th.

     In planning this event we realize that many judges need to drive a
     distance in order to participate.  Therefore, we have made arrangements
     for local hotel accommodations and a festive party featuring regional
     microbrewed and homebrewed beer, snacks, raffles and door prizes on
     Saturday night, June 5th.

     To receive a registration form and further information please send mail
     to Bob Gorman <bob at rsi.com> which a subject of 'Kingston'.  The
     registration deadline is Saturday, May 1st (National Homebrew Day).

     Anyone already enrolled in the BJCP will receive a us-mailing later next
     week, you need not reply to this message.  If you are new to the BJCP or
     not in the program then this is you official notice.  I look forward to
     your replies.

     Cheers!

     -- Bob Gorman              bob at rsi.com                Waltham MA, US --
     -- Judge Registrar         uunet!semantic!bob         (617) 893 5655 --

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1111, 04/02/93