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


Contents:
  Re: Sammy Adams (Paul Jasper)
  Re: Help! Overbubbling! (Lou Casagrande)
  Re: Help! Overbubbling! (Jay Kirschenbaum)
  Re: Methanol (aka wood alcohol) (Steve Dempsey)
  Beer Machine Infomercial (Randall Holt)
  another drinkers opinion on Clear Beer (Jim Sims)
  Sam Adams & other "microbrewers" (Ming-chung Lin)
  RE: Effects of Light on Beer (David Ferguson)
  Miller Genuine Draft Mini Kegs (greenbay)
  All grain instructions - how's this look? (David Hinz)
  Oatmeal Stout (RBSWEENEY)
  Cornelius repeat (oops) (drose)
  SPARGE, Skunks, Bidal (Jack Schmidling)
  Dextrins vs temp (korz)
  Mash stiffness vs. enzyme activity (korz)
  Isomerized Hop Extracts vs. Skunkiness (Mark Garetz)
  Re: filtering--Why? (florianb)
  Re: Legal Probelms for Sam(tm)Adams(tm) (Drew Lawson)
  HBD submission (rdeaver)
  membership (CBOSWELL)
  Miller CLEAR (Bill Fuhrmann)
  CLEAR BEER (thomas ciccateri)
  Collecting yeast abroad (/O=vmspfhou/S=dblewis/DD.SITE=JSCPROFS/)
  Belgian caramel pils (KLIGERMAN)


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, 5 May 1993 10:32:49 -0700
From: paul at rational.com (Paul Jasper)
Subject: Re: Sammy Adams

On 4 May, 10:03, Jeff Frane wrote:
> Subject: Re: Sammy Adams & Belgian Malts
> 
> Sam Adams is not and never has been a microbrewed beer.  From its
> inception it was contract-brewed, originally in Pennsylvania and for the
> last couple of years here in Portland at the Blitz-Weinhard Brewery.
> 
>-- End of excerpt from Jeff Frane

You mean the claim that Sam Adams Boston Lager(tm) is a microbrewery
beer is a "momily"(tm)?  ;^)

BTW, a sign has appeared on a huge billboard on the way into San
Francisco from the airport proclaiming Samuel Adams to be America's
best beer... I think a few of the city's Anchor drinkers might have
a word or two to say about that (let alone the Celis aficionados,
local brewpub fanatics, Red Tail Ale swiggers, etc, etc)!

- -- 
- -- Paul Jasper
- -- RATIONAL
- -- Object-Oriented Products
- --

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 09:07:10 EDT
From: casagran at gdstech.grumman.com (Lou Casagrande)
Subject: Re: Help! Overbubbling!

Jay wrote back in HBD1129 (sorry, but I'm just catching up on my
reading):

> A friend and I are making our first batch of Irish Stout. He has
> brewed a lager before, but this it my first batch of beer. We
> followed the directions that came with the beer kit (Irish Stout
from
> Eastern Brewers Supply) but used a liquid yeast instead of the dry
> yeast supplied (on the suggestion of EBS). 
> 
> We are fermenting in a ~6.5 Gal plastic primary fermenter, but now,
> two days after we pitched the yeast the wort is bubbling VERY
> vigerously. It is bubbling so much that it is getting in to the
> fermentiation lock, which was 3-4 inches above the level of the brew
> when we began. 
> 
> Did we do something wrong, or is a stout supposed to ferment that
> violently?

I have had the same thing happen with my two previous batches. The
first was the Sparrow Hawk Porter from TNCJOHB, which had an OG of
1.054. The second was the Dark Sleep Stout from TNCJOHB, which we
perked up a bit by using 3 lbs of the dark DME rather than 1 lb. This
had an OG of 1.067. The latter was so vigorous that it actually pushed
up the lid on my fermenter (when the air lock became clogged) and
spilled about a pint of foam on the floor. The stout is still aging in
the bottles, but the porter turned out to be very smooth, so this was
probably simply an inadvertant blowoff. By the way, both brews were
fairly highly hopped. I didn't use a liquid yeast, but I do rehydrate
religiously. That didn't change from previous batches, though, so I'm
not sure that that can be the answer. 

In any event, just clean up any mess, make sure your fermentation lock
stays clear, and let it ferment to completion (which has probably
already happened, considering the lateness of my posting wrt Jay's
:~O).

Lou Casagrande
casagran at gdstech.grumman.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 09:29:08 EDT
From: jkirsch at dolphin.uri.EDU (Jay Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Help! Overbubbling!

I wrote:
[Story about a very vigerous fermentation]

Well...Yesterday we bottled--a week ago we transferred the brew to a secondary
fermenter, and everything seems fine!!  I snuck a taste as we were bottling,
and it tastes great!! although perhaps not quite as bitter as it should
be, but these things happen.  I will report back in two weeks or so
and tell how it finally comes out, but thanks to everyone who responded
(I don't have all the old messages, sorry that I didn't respond individually)

Thanks,
Jay Kirschenbaum
jkirsch at dolphin.uri.edu
University of Rhode Island


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 07 May 93 08:01:49 -0600
From: Steve Dempsey <steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Subject: Re: Methanol (aka wood alcohol)


In HOMEBREW Digest #1136 you write:

>     Specifically, WHY isn't methanol produced during homebrewing
>or I guess the question could be asked as how DO you produce
>methanol?  Thanks for the info in advance.

Methanol production requires:

   1) the proper yeast (wild yeasts)
   2) unique fermentables (cellulose == wood, grain husks)

As a homebrewer, you use a known yeast type that does not yield
methyl alcohol as its primary waste product.  The homebrewers
of days gone by could not keep things clean; wild yeasts would
get in and start eating the wooden vats used for fermenting,
or in the case of moonshine production, the grain is left in
the mash during fermentation and provides enough fiber for
methanol production.  After distilling the product, the methanol
concentration is high enough to do serious damage.  Nearly all
methanol casualties are caused by consuming distilled spirits
produced from an improperly controlled fermentation.  Occasionally
someone stupid mistakenly procures the cheapest alcohol he can
find to spike his drink, not realizing that it's poisonous.

Traditional beer/ale homebrewing has never been a problem so
long as the right yeast strains are employed.  The wrong yeasts
are hard enough to come by that it's not going to be a problem
unless you ferment in wooden vats/barrels, or leave lots of
grain in your wort during fermentation.  Even so, the resulting
beer would have lots of other off-flavor byproducts of the unusual
yeast and you wouldn't want to drink it.

================================    Engineering Network Services
Steve Dempsey                       Colorado State University
steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu    Fort Collins, CO  80523
================================    +1 303 491 0630

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 10:14:03 -0400
From: rxh6 at po.CWRU.Edu (Randall Holt)
Subject: Beer Machine Infomercial



I haven't seen the ad mentioned yesterday for a homebrew video,
but I did catch the last few minutes of the Beer Machine (tm?)
Infomercial. Since I haven't noticed any mention on this letter,
I thought I'd bring it to attention.

The device they sell looks like a 2.5 gal. glass keg, laying
on it's side, with a support stand, a tap and a screw-cap up on
top. They demonstrate pouring in extract, adding water straight
from the tap, add the yeast and screw on the cap ( I assume there's
some kind of CO2 release). Wait for five days, then refrigerate 
(presumably after closing the release) and draw your own. 

They only want $34.95 for the kit (oh, times four easy payments,
a typical infomercial small-print bullshit trick), so the real
cost with shipping is about $150. The extract they sell is
Sun Country, which they will gladly supply for refills for about 
twice the cost at my local HB shop. But, hey, business is business.

Despite the excessive cost, this may introduce people into real
homebrewing. The question I have, has anyone tried this system, or
even tried brewing in this fashion, by fermenting and carbonating
in the same container? I can imagine how tangy this beer would be,
being poured right off the trub. Of course the happy smiling 'real
people' are quaffing crystal clear, perfectly carbonated, 1 inch head,
beer. I don't recall them ever mentioning the word yeast, which I 
would guess is a marketing strategy, but they do call their system 
"All natural". (So is the aboriginal practice of spitting in the 
mash pot to hasten the conversion of starch). 

I also object to the trademarking of MY nickname.
Randy 'The other Beer Machine' Holt

Bibo Ergo Sum



- --
Randall W. Holt		rxh6 at po.cwru.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 10:41:13 EDT
From: sims at pdesds1.atg.trc.scra.org (Jim Sims)
Subject: another drinkers opinion on Clear Beer

 
 Hans is local to DC...
 
 jim
 
 
> Return-Path: <tallis at starbase.mitre.org>
> Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 10:21:05 -0400
> From: Hans Tallis <tallis at starbase.mitre.org>
> In-Reply-To: Jim Sims's message of Fri, 7 May 93 07:46:12 EDT
> Subject: more Clear Beer silliness
> 
> 
> I've had a clear beer, down in C'ville.  It tasted like dirty, weak
>vodka.  I think I almost threw up.  (But it was like the 10th beer for
>the evening, so maybe that had something to do with it.) 
> 
> - --Hans

Return to table of contents


Date:      Fri, 7 May 1993 11:26:17 EDT
From: Ming-chung Lin <MARS at suvm.acs.syr.EDU>
Subject:   Sam Adams & other "microbrewers"

Last year I visited the F.X. Matt brewery in Utica, NY and
was delighted to see a room full of GOOD BEER (not the usual
Matt's fare).  There were tanks full of Sam Adams, Harpoon Ale
Brooklyn Lager, and others that I don't now remember.  Matt's
contract brews for many microbreweries, although I think the
tour guide (whose knowledge I sincerely doubt since he claimed
"beer is beer") said that they didn't brew Sam Adams, they
just aged and bottled it.  The others were brewed there.

For those of you in other parts of the country, Matt's is the
nation's 11th largest brewer, far behind the likes of Miller
and A.B.  It's named after and owned by Frances Xavier Matt
and also his brother.  They produce a very low budget (and
taste) line called Utica Club, a middle of the road line called
Matt's (kind of like PBR), and also Saranac Lager which won
some best beer of its kind award.

I find it curious that the brewers that are brawling in Boston
all send their stuff to Utica.

Lisa St. Hilaire <MARS at SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU>

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri,  7 May 93 08:57:06 PDT
From: David Ferguson <davidfer at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Effects of Light on Beer

Ed Westemeie writes:

"Get a six-pack from a freshly opened case in the
back room, rather than a cold one that has been sitting in the display case
under fluorescent lights for a week."

I'm curious if there is any relation between the protection from light 
and the better flavor of draft beer.  I would imagine that there really 
are several reasons why draft beer tastes better including freshness 
and less temperature variance due to higher volume, but is light 
exposure a significant factor?  Would any brewing gurus care to 
illuminate me (us) on the issue?

Dave Ferguson

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 11:09:36 CDT
From: greenbay at vnet.IBM.COM
Subject: Miller Genuine Draft Mini Kegs

I was at the bar last night and saw something new. Little plastic
Miller Genuine Draft kegs with a turnspout. They looked like they would
be pretty cool for storing homebrew in. The are made of heavy-duty plastic
and the screw on top forms quite a seal (I sprained my thumb opening it.)
Has anyone ever tried to put homebrew in these things? (Size-wise they are
a little larger than the average pitcher.)

So, does anyone know where I can get grass from lambeau field so that I can
brew Green Bay Packer beer?

Later,
Bob Crowley


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 11:39:58 CDT
From: hinz at memphis.med.ge.com (David Hinz)
Subject: All grain instructions - how's this look?


Greetings!

I've decided to jump in with both feet, and go for an all-grain batch.  I've
purchased a lauter tun, and will construct a cooking kettle out of a 
Stainless Steel 1/2 bbl and a water heater element tonight.  I wrote up 
a checklist, and would like to run it past people here to see what comments
you have.  Obviously, it's a very basic checklist, but I want to make sure
I have things in the right order, haven't missed anything, and so on.

I'm doing Papazian's "Silver Dollar Porter", with an extra pound of Munich
malt per the suggestion of the local brewshop.  My lauter tun is sort of a
Zapap-type, but with a rotating sprinkler for the sparge water (probably fluff,
but I'm lazy & impatient, so I didn't buy or build an easy-sparger.....yet)

So, here's my list:

>Select recipe & obtain ingredients.
 
>Start Yeast pack (2-3 days before brewing)
 
>Add yeast to quart of starter wort (~12 hours before brewing)
 
>Preboil 10 gallons of "brewing water", put in carboys when cool. (night
before brewing)
 
>Bring 1.33 qt H2O per pound of grist to 130 degrees (f) in mash kettle.
 
>Add above water to grist, protein rest for (60?) minutes at 122 deg.
        >Adjust pH to about 5.3 if needed
 
>Start sparge water in cooker kettle, bring to 170(?) degrees.  How much?
 
>Raise mash temp to 155 deg, hold at this temp until conversion is done.
 (Can I do this with boiling water?  How much do I use?) 
        >Adjust pH if needed   
        >Test for conversion with Tincture of Iodine
 
>Raise temp of mash to 175 deg, for (20?) minutes, to mash-out.
 
>Pour mash into lauter tun, let it compact, recirculate runoff until clear.
 
>Put sparge water into sparging vessel, start the sprinkler.  Keep the
liquid level right around the top of the grain bed by regulating flow in 
and out of lauter tun.  Collect this wort in the cooker.
 
>Plug in cooker, bring to boil, add hops per schedule, boil per recipe.
 
>Immersion chill, rack, pitch, shake, ferment, rack, settle, rack, prime,
bottle, keep in kitchen for a week, put it in the basement, wait, wait,
wait, drink, MMMMmmmmmmmmmm.
 
- ---


Note that some of the times may be inaccurate, I'm doing this from memory,
30 miles away from my books.  Those, obviously, will be adjusted as needed.

Please e-mail or post if you can suggest improvements.  I can't read R.C.B,
so posts to the HBD would be better.


Thanks for any input,
Dave Hinz

Return to table of contents


Date: 07 May 1993 12:08:17 -0600 (CST)
From: RBSWEENEY at memstvx1.memst.edu
Subject: Oatmeal Stout

Does anyone on the HBD have a good all-grain recipe for an oatmeal stout.
? Last month at the Bluff City Brewers and Connoisseurs awards banquet
(Memphis,TN) Dave Miller was the guest speaker and brought along a keg of
his delicious oatmeal stout--my kind of guest.  Unfortunately, I was not able
to talk to him long enough to get the recipe, but the idea of oatmeal stout
will not go away.  The hop bouquet on Dave's was heavenly, so I assume he 
must have dry hopped, and he did say the beer had been filtered using a DE?
filter.  Emails would be appreciated.
As an aside, some of Miller's comments on making the transition from homebrewer
to microbrewer (his is in St. Louis) related to the brewers individual
perspective on brewing.  He basically divided the brewing community into 
'Germans' and 'Belgains'.  The Germans being those who meticulously brew to
style, while the Belgains never want their brews to taste the same way twice.
His opinion was that as you make the transition to microbrewer you lose some
of your Belgain influence and become more German.  He also strongly recommended
the filtering of beer, which he claimed brought out entirely new (and 
presumably better) flavor profiles.  As I said, if his oatmeal stout is any
indication, he must be on to something.  
Thanks in advance for the recipes.

Bob Sweeney
Department of Management Information Systems
Memphis State University

P.S.  Oops, make that 'Germans' and 'Belgians'.
                                         ^^

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 13:45:46 -0400
From: drose at husc.harvard.edu
Subject: Cornelius repeat (oops)

Hello.  I recently posted a question about sources for Cornelius kegs.  Thanks
to all who replied with some good input.  One person in particular sent a 
lenthy piece on keg cleaning and reconditioning which was very useful.  
Unfortunately, I deleted it before I could get it on paper; could the 
person who sent it (whose name I also deleted) please send it again. I
offer my sheepish thanks.
	Also, regarding the use of yeast in medfly traps (HBD#1136): yes, 
fruitflies in fact do not eat fruit, they eat wild yeast that grows on fruit.
In the lab (drosophila melanogaster is a favored organism for studying 
development) they are grown in little vials with yeast and some
food for the yeast to eat.  As a yeast geneticist working in a building 
populated by fly geneticists, this relationship is a particularly painful
one.  I will probably never recover from the repeated taunts of "my organism
EATS your organism".  

								d.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 12:51 CDT
From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: SPARGE, Skunks, Bidal

 
 >From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
 >Subject: Sparge Water
 
 >I personally let the mash thickness float, and indeed have found this
 to be a relatively unimportant variable within a reasonable range. In
 particular, plots of yield vs. mash thickness tend to be quite flat in
 the range 25-40 liters/kg.
 
 Not sure I can address what youse guys are talking about but I will use the 
 discussion as a segue to what I want to talk about.
 
 I have found that there are far more advantages to using a thin mash than a 
 thick one.  In fact, I don't know of any reasons for fighting a thick mash.
 
 1.  A thin mash has more mass and makes temp maintenance far easier.
 
 2.  A thin mash is far easier to stir and thereby assure thorough mashing and 
 temperature homogeneity.
 
 3.  A thin mash requires less sparge water in direct proportion to the amount 
 of mash water used.
 
 4.  A thin mash has less tendency to scorch or caramelize when kettlemashing.
 
 5.  It takes longer to bring a thin mash to temp but the time is well spent 
 as the mash gets a sample of every recommended "rest" in the book and has the 
 possiblity of curing every il and adding a bit of every character possible.
 
 For the record, I use 4 gals of water to mash 12 lbs of grain.  I consider 
 this on the thin side but have no qualms about using more water, just haven't 
 tried it.
 
 
 >From: WESTEMEIER at delphi.com
 >Subject: Effect of light on beer
  
 >OK, how much light does it take?  If it's the right (actually, the wrong) 
 kind of light, the answer is "not much."....
 
 I was waiting with baited breath to hear the answer but "not much" is not 
 very satisfying.
 
 All this science is real nice but when I see people putting bags over carboys 
 of fermenting beer in the basement, I can't help but wonder if we haven't got 
 another MOMILY out of control.
 
 As a teenager, we joked about "Skunky Millers", so I am a believer in the 
 principles involved but have serious reservations about the potential damage 
 from occasional fluorescent lights over a period of a few weeks.
 
 Seems easy enough to prove with a few simple experiments but I am so far from 
 believing it, that I have better things to do.
 
 So, I offer a challenge to some incipient MOMILY BUSTER.  Split a batch in 
 half and keep half in the dark and expose the other to 8 hrs of fluorescent 
 light per day.  Bottle some of both when ready, then do the same every 30 
 days till you smell a skunk and report back.  
 
 My bet is, you will run out of beer first.
 
 ..........
 
 Does anyone know anything about the Bidal Society Competition? i.e., can 
 someone post the results?
 
 js

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 13:36 CDT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Dextrins vs temp

While looking for some data for another post, I found the following
info, which I think is very interesting.  It's from a post by Todd
Enders from July 1991:

>Subject:   Mashing, Dextrins, and American Lager Stats.
>
>
>     After the recent discussion about dextrins, mashing, etc.  I went and did
>a little research into just how much the mash temperature effects the 
>fermentability of the wort.  I found the following in _Industrial 
>Microbiology_ by Prescott and Dunn, 3rd ed. (used without permission)
>
>Effect of the Temperature of Conversion on the Ratio of Sugars to Dextrins
>
>     Conversion                 Ratio of Sugar
>        Temp.                    to Dextrins
>     ----------                 --------------
>
>       147.2F                       1:0.37
>       150.8F                       1:0.40
>       154.4F                       1:0.48
>       158.0F                       1:0.52
>       161.6F                       1:0.57
>

Very interesting, no?
Back to my thick vs. thin mash search...
Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 13:59 CDT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Mash stiffness vs. enzyme activity

George writes:
>These results are for infusion mashing only. The situation for decoction
>is a good deal more complicated because of the volume reductions during
>boiling.
>Theoretically a thick mash provides more thermal protection for enzymes, and
>this has been put forward as a point for a thick mash. On the other hand,
>enzyme activity is inhibited by the concentration of the products produced,
>and this tends to favor a thin mash.
>
>There appears to be some disagreement about whether the effects cancel,
>or that they are simply weak effects. Our mathematical models (based on the
>nonlinear differential equations of enzyme kinetics) suggest it is a
>combination of both. In any case, it has been my personal experience with my
>own system that mash thickness is not a major issue.

It was Noonan that said: "...thick mash improves enzyme performance.  In
a thin mash, proteolytic and other heat-labile enzymes are destroyed in
the course of the rest: in a thick mash, they may survive into the
saccharification range."

Greg brews some great beers, on the other hand, he sometimes goes to
extremes.  Therefore, I'd just take this more as a data point than
a definitive answer.
 
On the third hand (?), I've read, but cannot find it again (drat!), that
a stiff mash favors one of the amylase enzymes and a thin one favors
the other.  Anyone have this data?  Was that in Noonan also?

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 07 May 1993 10:49:58
From: garetz at brahms.amd.com (Mark Garetz)
Subject: Isomerized Hop Extracts vs. Skunkiness

>Paul dArmand asks about isomerized extracts and whether or not they are
immune from ligh-struck or "skunky" effects.

Regular isomerized extracts are no more immune to skunkiness than hops. 
However, there *is* a treatment one can do to the extract (or presumably,
the beer) that makes the beer more immune.  Sam Smith's claims to use such a
process, but IMHO it doesn't work very well.  I have had many of their Nut
Brown Ales that were severely light struck.

>Ed Westemeie states that isomerized alpha acids are much more bitter than
their non-isomerized "natural" counterparts.

Nothing I have ever read on hops supports this statement.  However, the
non-isomerized alpha acids don't dissolve very well in water or beer, and so
they have a minimal effect on the bitterness.  The isomerized AAs are much
more soluble.  Maybe Ed was actually trying to state this, but simplified it.

Mark Garetz
HopTech


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 07 May 93 12:58:08 PDT
From: florianb at ying.cna.tek.com
Subject: Re: filtering--Why?

Scott Stihler writes:

=>
I've got a question regarding filtering beer. I've been interested in filtering
my homebrew for awhile but I'm somewhat confused as to what is the optimum
filter size for beer. Does anybody out there happen to know? I'm afraid if I
get too small a filter size I may lose body. Anyways, I'd appreciate here what
=>

I was interested in this at one time also, due to some haziness I had with
my brews. However, I figured out that instead of filtering out the haze
along with body, I should fix the problems that caused the haze in the
first place. I don't know what all was causing the haze, but I did a
combination of things to fix it. These included: going all-grain, using
a keg system, and changing how I did the mash.

The old timers on this digest will remember me and my mashing technique.
Someday I will get out from under all the piled up duties at work and
ship out a description of my mashing technique. Basically, I put all
the sparge water in the mash at once, stir, and wait until the whole
thing settles. Saves time and hassle, and I get nearly the same 
extraction as with the old textbook method. I'll detail it someday, 
I promise.

Florian


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 14:07:13 PDT
From: lawson at acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: Re: Legal Probelms for Sam(tm)Adams(tm)


> From dalton at mtl.mit.edu (Timothy J. Dalton)

> Boston Globe, Thursday May 6, 1993.  Pg. 77 (Business Sect.)

> and it didn't really reflect our mission," says association president Charles
> Papazian.

Charles?  That's the first time I've _ever_ seen that.

>    Now New York is telling Koch that "there is clear potential for consumers
> being misled when you refer in the aggregate to "winning" the Great American
> Beer Festival without being specific as to the nature of what you won."

Hmm.  I seem to recall exactly that being discussed in the Digest about
two years ago.  I was impressed with the ad claims until I read just
_how_ the "winner" was chosen.



Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson at acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 17:35:27 EDT
From: rdeaver at tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Subject: HBD submission

A while back, I recall somebody posting a comment about boiling wort.
The post mentioned that if you brought the wort over a certain
temperature (I believe it was 153 degrees F), you would convert some of
the sugars to a non-fermentable form.

I only have a half-dozen batches under my belt, and most have seemed a
bit sweet.  The finishing gravities ave been around 1.002, but the brew
had a heavy taste to it.

Planning to launch off on another brewing session of Heavy Scottish Ale,
I dropped into the local brewshop for a strainer bag.  The question
raised was that if I did not boil the wort, would I have sterilization
problems.  I will be using Briess DME, and this time will be using some
specialty grains.  I always boil water ahead of time, to get rid of
chlorine.

What is the general consensus?  I have had this "sweet heaviness" with
several batches; it is not recipe-specific.  The last batch, I went as
far as using yeast nutrient.

Return to table of contents


Date: 07 May 1993 17:08:21 -0700 (MST)
From: CBOSWELL at CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: membership

Greetings, 
I am a member of the Old Pueblo Homebrewing Club, in Tucson, AZ, and I would
like to expand my horizons by becoming a member of the homebrewing e-mail
digest.  My address is: cboswell at ccit.arizona.edu
Thanks.  I look forward to absorbing the wisdom of elders (in experience,
only, of course) and maybe contributing some of my own, if I ever get any.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 7 May 93 19:00:41 CDT
From: fiero at pnet51.orb.mn.org (Bill Fuhrmann)
Subject: Miller CLEAR


Just realized that we are a test market, the rest of you haven't had the
"honor" of tasting Miller Clear yet.
 
It looks and tastes like sparkling water.  There is a very slight (very,
very, very slight) bit of beer taste to it and a little bit more nose.
 
To a quick sniff, it smells like you didn't quite rinse out your glass
completely.  You have to swirl it around your mouth to notice any taste.
 
I expect that this will be popular with very under age drinkers since
it does not require acquiring a taste for it, it won't be obvious what
they are drinking (maybe also popular for drinking in cars for that
reason), and won't be noticeable on their breath.
 
I bought it once to see what it was like and it appears to have lived
down to even lower expectations than most of the people in the beer
world expected.
 
The clerk in the store thought that I was buying an interesting
combination of brews;  Clear and Cerveza Caliente (cabos style chili
beer).  The Cerveza is brewed by the Minnesota Brewing Company in
St. Paul (home of blonds and blond food).
 
If you want to brew a clone, just put water in the bottle, add yeast and
the priming sugar.  You'll probably come pretty close to the taste but not
the 4.6 % (by volume according to the label) alcohol.  Just think, you can
mix this with a low alcohol beer and get a light beer.


Bill Fuhrmann, aka fiero at pnet51.orb.mn.org
                   
"You don't know what you've got till it's gone." - Joni Mitchell  



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 9 May 93 1:51:18 MDT
From: thomas ciccateri <tciccate at carina.unm.edu>
Subject: CLEAR BEER

I brought some Miller CLEAR BEER to this month's meeting of the
Dukes Of Ale club for tasting.  The label claims 4.6% alcohol /
volume.  Consumers can call 1-800-MILLER6 for more information.
Most reviewer's comments reflected the following opinions: 
Aroma - CO2, Taste - Slightly sweet water, Body - like seltzer
water, Aftertaste - none, Overall Impression - Good clarity, no
hop bitterness or aroma, no malt character and no appreciable
flavor outside that attributed to carbonation.  And some people
thought that it couldn't get any worse than light beer !

	Tom Ciccateri	-> 	tciccate at carina.unm.edu
	University of New Mexico
	Training and Learning Technologies Div.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 9 May 93 08:54 PDT
From: /O=vmspfhou/S=dblewis/DD.SITE=JSCPROFS/ at NASAmail.nasa.gov
Subject: Collecting yeast abroad


***************************** PROFS Note *****************************
 From: DBLEWIS --VMSPFHOU            Date and time  05/09/93 10:54:40
 To: POSTMAN --NASAMAIL

 FROM: Dennis B. Lewis <dblewis at jscprofs.nasa.gov>
 SUBJECT: Collecting yeast abroad

 I have the good fortune to be going to Germany (Cologne area) next month. I'd
 like to collect some yeast while I'm there. I have a few questions for the
 net:

 1. How well does solid agar keep at approx room temp for maybe a week or so?
 I'm pretty careful with sanitation.

 2. What does the Customs Dept think when you come back with small vials of
 yeast on slants that are capped and all taped up? I know they get bent out of
 shape if you bring plants or animal products, so does yeast count?

 3. Pierre Rajotte, in the Zymurgy special issue, sez to mail the vials back
 home, along with a business card from the brewery, mark it yeast sample, etc.,
 and leave it to the postal inspectors to yea or nay it. Does this work?

 4. Anybody know of any must see breweries/biergartens in Cologne?

 Any responses would be greatly appreciated. If I get enough e-mail (as opposed
 to HBD posts) I'll collect the ideas and post them at once. Thanks in advance
 for all the expert advice.

 Dennis B. Lewis  *  (713) 483-9145  *  NASA/JSC/DH6 Payload Ops
 Homebrew, The Final Frontier.


Return to table of contents


Date: 09 May 1993 20:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: KLIGERMAN at herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov
Subject: Belgian caramel pils

I hope someone can clarify for me the use of DeWolf-Cosyns  Caramel
Malt Caramel Pils.  I was under the impression that these were crystal malts
that did not need to be mashed; with cara-pils being the lightest and special
B being the darkest.  Today I was making a Pilzen style honey lager and
wanted to use a pound a very light crystal (Caramel Malt Caramel Pils).  As
I usually do with an extract recipe, I crushed the grain, added it to about 3/4
gallon of cold water, and slowly brought the "mash" up to about 180 F.  I
then sparged with about a gallon of hot water (about 190 F).  After this I 
looked at the grain and it looked like gelatinized starch.  I did an iodine
test and the result was jet blue-black.  I decided to add more water and 1 
pound of crushed Klages Pale malt and mashed at about 155 F.  I then added 
this to my honey-malt extract wort.  Question:  The Belgian malt did not act
like typical crystal malt--it gelatinized instead of dissolving.  I thought
this was supposed to be a crystal malt or if not at least self convert.  It
seemed to do neither--just form gelatinized soft grain.  Can anyone please tell
me where my assumptions or processes are wrong, else I will worry without having
a homebrew.  Will my Pilzen be cloudy from the first sparge of the apparently 
unconverted starch?
Thanks,
Andy Kligerman

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1137, 05/10/93