---

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


Contents:
  Thanks to all who responded (Rolland Everitt)
  yeast mutations (BOBKATPOND)
  slow carbonation (Bob Wilcox)
  Alcohol/Starters/CO2/Stills (A. J. deLange)
  Electric Stove Hook-Up/Long Signature Files (Jeff Hewit)
  First Wort Hopping Summary ("Dave Draper")
  Bottle washing (Dave Corio)
  Admonishing and The Evil Advance Title List... ("Pat Babcock")
  frustrated homebrewer (by way of "Jeremy E. Mirsky" <mirsjer at charlie.acc.iit.edu>)
  oak in lager (Robert Rogers)
  Racist newsgroup proposal alert! (Jay.Betrug)
  recent trip to tennessee (Robert Rogers)
  Science in beer (Mitch Dushay)
  Distilled Beverage Summary.... (Aesoph, Michael)
  Apple Beer Recipe? (COLLICR1)
  Re: Calories Revisited (PWhite)
  Cherry Fever Stout w/ canned cherries ("Lee A. Kirkpatrick"                       )
  How you say, "De groovy?" ("Barry Blakeley")
  more genetic drift, distilling ("Tracy Aquilla")
  Victoria, BC visit (HOMEBRE973)
  Starters, moonshine, misc. (Russell Mast)
  brewpubs in Fla. ("FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS")
  carbonation process ("FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS")
  Grain Bag (Edwin Thompson)
  Re: CO2 in what form? (Spencer W Thomas)
  Bristletail Ale (Bugs in my beer) (Keith Frank)



******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
* 
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
 
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
  ftp.stanford.edu.  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
  e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
  /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.  AFS users can find it under
  /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.  If you do not have
  ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
  service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  For information about this service,
  send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
  "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.


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


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 06:24:34 -0500
From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: Thanks to all who responded



Thanks to the MANY people who responded to my double inquiry on
first wort hopping and ftpmail.  I received much useful informa-
tion, and numerous offers of help obtaining back issues of HBD.

I have been "surfing the net" for about four years now.  During
most of that time I have had full Internet access and did not 
have to rely on secondary means of access such as ftpmail. Some
of our members are obviously quite knowledgable about these
things, and happy to help.

I have belonged to many 'net discussion lists on many topics,
ranging from sailing to computer center administration, but I
have never belonged to a group where the membership was more
committed to mutual help.  HBD and its members are a 
great resource!

Rolland Everitt

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 08:21:02 -0500
From: BOBKATPOND at aol.com
Subject:  yeast mutations

From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: yeast mutations
>>Many micros and brewpubs reuse their yeast for many generations and some
use 
>>the yeast forever. There are several reasons for this, to replace the yeast

>>is expensive, it usually performs better after a few generations, and there

>>is no reason to replace it very often. I talked to one brewer who said that
>>he wanted his yeast to mutate.  That way he had a yeast that no one else
had. It >>was his own strain of yeast.

>This may be true, but that brewer doesn't know that the odds are against
>him.  Most mutations are undesirable.  Natural selection was covered very
>nicely in Domenic's post (that's a keeper).
 
>>All brewers have their own methods of monitering their yeast. Some go by
the 
>>number of generations, others watch the performance of the yeast carefully 
>>(such as how it flocculates and how the attenuation is ) and can tell 
>>when things are different and then dump the yeast. 

>Good point, but I feel you could elaborate on it.  It is my understanding
>(I'm no microbiologist) that the most common mutations are (in no particular
>order):

>* losing the ability to reabsorb diacetyl,
>* losing the ability to ferment some sugars,
>* losing the ability to flocculate, and
>* respiratory deficient (RD) mutants -- aka "Petit Mutants" (this mutation
>  exhibits itself as some combination of the first three... I don't recall
>  which).

>As you can see, none of these are particularly appealing mutations.  This is
>why Bob points out that you need to watch the yeast's performance and if
>something starts to increase or decrease suddenly, you should toss the yeast
>and start from stratch (or a master, if you've got it).

Fix in"Principles Of Brewing Sciences pg156 states petite mutants are the
most common form of mutation." At levels as low as 1% of the pitching yeast,
these mutants can produce diacetyl at levels well above theshold.
 .....Although diacetyl levels seem to be the best indicator of their
presence, there are also reports that the petite mutants produce high levels
of fusel alcohols and are very strongly flocculent." 

Bob Morris

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 06:42:14 -0800
From: Bob Wilcox <bobw at sirius.com>
Subject: slow carbonation

Hi All
This is my first time post. I brewed a ale partial mash O.G. 1.052  S.G.1.012
used wyeast irish ale #1084, Primary 7 days, secondary 14 days, gelatin 3
days before bottling. Bottled and primed with 1 1/4 cup DME ( never used DME
before).  I pitched a 750ml starter in primary and got a good start. It's
been 3 wks since I bottled and almost no carbonation. Now the questions.
1. Is using DME a lot slower than corn sugar?
2. Is the #1084 a slow acting yeast?
3. Did the gelatin settle out to much yeast?(I Have used it before,worked OK)
4. What about temp for aging? I have them at constant 68-70 degs.

Any help with this would be great. I hate flat beer.
Email or Post is fine

TIA
Bob
Bob Wilcox
Long Barn Brewing
bobw at sirius.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 13:49:08 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Alcohol/Starters/CO2/Stills

A few comments on the caloric content of alcohol. Alcohol is metabolized by
oxidation back to the acetaldehyde from which it came using the same
enzyme: alcohol dehydrogenase, but its done in the cytosol of your liver
cells instead of in yeast cells (and the ADH is different). Actually the
gastric mucosa contain some ADH (more in men than in women which is why the
bioavailability of ethanol in women is higher than in men, a fact which has
been exploited by men, but not gentlemen such as your writer, since time
immemorial). The acetaldehyde is further oxidzed to acetyl (this is a noun,
remember) by another enzyme, aldehyde dehydrogenase, in the mitochondria.
Acetaldehyde in a nasty thing (even if it does have that pleasant apple
odor) in your body and is responsible for much of the distress of hangover.
The stuff that your grandmother snuck into your gramdfather's coffee to
control his drinking (disulfiram) blocks the action of aldhehyde
dehydrogenase thus allowing acetaldehyde to pool. Some orientals are
genetically deficient with respect to this enzyme which is why many of them
can't drink. The acetyl quickly joins up with coenzyme A to form acetyl-CoA
which can either go into fatty acid or cholesterol synthesis pathways or
enter the Krebs cycle to udergo oxidation to CO2 and water. In this latter
case, all the caloric energy of the alcohol is converted to ATP just as if
the acetate came from pyruvic acid which is the usual source (from normal
glycolysis). The other pathways are associated with the "fatty liver" and
modified levels of triacylglycerols in the blood of users of alcohol (the
increases HDL/LDL ratio in moderate drinkers is thought to be a cause of
increased longevity by some).

The carbon of consumed alcohol is NOT available for glcuoneogenesis or
conversion to glycogen thus the calories of alcohol are often referred to
as "empty calories" but they are available as a source of energy via
respiration. There are, of course, lots of problems associated with the
metabolism of alcohol, may of them due to the presence of excess quantities
of NADH (the product of the oxidation steps) in the system. There are also
other means by which alcohol is eliminated from the body (sweat, urine,
breath, MEOS). I have described the major one.

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

Regan Pallandi asked about the necessity of the stepup protocol used in
building up yeast starters. This is an opinion but the two major reasons
for stepping up are convenience and safety. Any time I'm trying to make a
"culture", be it a few ml or a half barrel, I want enough cells going into
it to overwhelm  any competition. Transferring a loopful of cells to a
small tube assures this this. Going from a loop to a litre does not. On the
practical side, the small tube is easier to manipulate at the same time as
the slant and gives me an opportunity to see if I've met the safety
criterion before I go to the trouble to boil and cool a gallon of wort.
Once underway, the small tubefull gets pitched into a flask and by the time
that is underway it is practical to decant a portion for smell, taste and
microscopic examination checks. If infection is spotted I can start over
from another slant or, if desparate, acid wash the culture I have at this
point. From,the  flask level  on it's into a one gallon carboy which goes
through repeated cycles of decant broth; supply fresh wort and oxygen. The
problem with this is that as the paste buids up the yeast will go through a
pound of sugar in no time and the feedings must be frequent. A larger
starter volume would decrease the necessity for some of these feedings but
I stay with a 2.5 gallon carboy. After bad experiences last summer all
starters stay under a laminar flow hood until they are used and the smaller
size carboys will fit in there and can be manipulated.

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

Howard Smith asked why PV doesn't equal nRT in a CO2 bottle. In case it was
not perfectly clear from other posts, it is because there is liquid in the
bottle most of the time. When all the liquid boils off or the temperature
gets above 89F the bottle is full of gas and the gas law does apply.

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

Mitch Hogg opines that the BATF, which is part of the Treasury Department,
is serious about cracking down on illegal stills because of concern for the
health of the population. Anyone who believes this should immediately
report to Clinton Campaign Headquarters. We can forgive Mitch his naivite'
based on his Canadian address. With lead solder virtually impossible to
find anymore we're pretty much left with fire/explosions as the main
hazzards. Many people thumb their noses at the law and distill at home (or
in the woods or wherever). I think these people are crazy. They should be
in fear for their lives, not from lead (solvated) or explosions from
alcohol vapor but from lead (flying) and explosion set off by the folks who
brought us Ruby Ridge, Waco and other "minor" incidents (like beseiging the
guy who missed child support payments).

A.J. deLange   Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 14:20:55 -0500
From: jhewit at freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit)
Subject: Electric Stove Hook-Up/Long Signature Files



My previous entry on using a burner outlet to power a
counter-top boiler elicited private scoldings from two of our
more priggish members, so I was somewhat reluctant to post
again.  But the feeling soon passed, so here I am again.

I know know that others may disagree with me, but I want to
point out again that anyone who fools around with electricity
in an unapproved fashion is asking for trouble.  Household
current can kill in a fraction of a second.  Call me an
electrophobe.  I prefer to think that I'm just giving
electricity the respect it deserves.  Anyway, I believe that
anyone who shoves wires into the burner outlet of an electric
stove IS crazy.  (If they are just ignorant, they're lucky to
have lived this long.)  And, I am concerned that the guy who 
asked about this is apparently being encouraged to try it by 
another  member of the collective.

We all have a pashion for good beer, but it's not worth dying
for.

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

There have also been some comments on the use of long signature
files.  I agree that long files - I have seen at least one that
is 14 lines long - are a waste of space.  It's fine to identify
yourself, and include appropriate location information and
phone numbers.  (I assume all those using work-location access 
have their employer's permission to receive recreational
email.)  It's also OK to include a short quote or other witty
line.  However, please spare us all the goofy artwork.

- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hewit                  
Midlothian, Virginia 
                          

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:11:21 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper at mq.edu.au>
Subject: First Wort Hopping Summary

Dear Friends, with the recent interest in First Wort Hopping, I
thought I would provide this summary of the article in Brauwelt that
was mentioned in George Fix's original post.   To answer a recent 
question regarding the wording in Jim DiPalma's posts: First Wort 
Hopping refers to adding the hops to the kettle as the wort is 
sparged into it--the hops sit there soaking in the runnings for the 
entire time the runnings are collected.  They continue to sit in the 
wort as the boil is commenced.

This summary is just from my reading of the article (The rediscovery
of first wort hopping, by Freis, Nuremberg, and Mitter, Brauwelt
IV:308, 1995; copy supplied to me by Andy Walsh) and is not meant to
be comprehensive; but I hope that is useful to some of us.  Any
errors in understanding the content of the article are mine.  I am
sure we will all have lots to talk about on this subject; I'm only
trying to provide what the original article had to say (in Readers
Digest form).   I'll do it in sorta outline form.

1.  Introductory material.  First wort hopping (FWH) was used
extensively at the start of the century but mainly in order to
enhance bitterness rather than aroma.  It was recognized that the
higher pH of the *wort*  (as opposed to later in the boil) had a
positive effect on utilization, combatting the effects of losses from
coagulation on break material. The higher pH of the first runnings
enhances isomerization of alpha acids.  Other attempts were made to
actually hop the mash (!!); other early efforts involved  running the
sparged wort through a hop filter--a "hop front" instead of a hop
back, I guess...DeClerk steeped the hops in 50C water before adding
to the wort (to remove "unpleasant" stuff); a later worker used 70C
water. Both reported enhanced aroma qualities.

2.  The experiments.  Two different breweries produced the test
brews that make up the subject of this article, Pils types.  The two
breweries make a slightly different version of Pils.  At each
brewery,  the FWH beer was brewed with a reference beer alongside. 
The FWH and Reference beers at each brewery were done under
controlled conditions, identical ingredients, pitching rates, etc.,
and differed only in the way they were hopped.    In both test
breweries, hops were dumped into the boiler once its bottom was
covered with wort; no stirring--they just sat there while wort was
sparged on top of them.  Brew A (total hopping: 13.0 g alpha acid
per hectolitre of cast wort) was first-hopped with 34% of the total
amount added--Tettnang and Saaz that were typically used in aroma
additions at the end of the boil under normal conditions.  Brew B
(total hopping: 12.2 g alpha acid per hl wort) used only Tettnang,
but 52% of the total hop amount was used as First Wort Hops.  No
aroma hopping was done in either brew.

3.  Tasting panel results: the FWH beers were overwhelmingly
preferred over the reference beers in triangular taste tests (i.e.,
each taster was given three beers, two of either the reference beer
or the FWH beer, and one of the other, and had to correctly identify
which two were alike before their preference results were
incorporated in the database).  11 of 12 tasters of each beer
preferred the FWH beer.  The main reasons given for the preference:
"a fine, unobtrusive hop aroma; a more harmonic beer; a more uniform
bitterness."

4.  Analytical results--bitterness: The FWH beers had more IBUs than
did the reference beers.  Brew A: Ref beer was 37.9 IBU, FWH beer was
39.6 IBU. Brew B: Ref beer was 27.2 IBU, FWH beer was 32.8 IBU.  This
should come as no surprise, since more hops were in the kettle for
the boil in the FWH beers than in the Reference beers.  Prior to
fermentation, the worts from both breweries showed the following
features: the FWH wort had substantially more isomerized alpha acids,
but less non-isomerized alphas.  This was particularly true of Brew
B, which had a higher proportion of first-wort hops.  Nevertheless,
the bitterness of the FWH beers was described as more pleasing than
the (slightly weaker) bitterness of the reference beers.

5.  Analytical results--aroma:  For the aroma compounds, very
distinct differences were measured (gas chromatography) in both the
identities and concentrations of the various aromatic compounds
between the FWH beers and the reference beers.  Because the precise
nature of the effects of aromatic compounds on beer flavor are very
complicated, it cannot be said with certainty just why the various
measurements resulted in the overwhelming tasting preference, but
clearly something is going on here.  Even though the reference beers
had higher *absolute amounts* of most of the aroma compounds, again
the FWH beers got higher ratings for overall pleasure.

6.  Final comments: each brewery needs to experiment with its own
setup for determining what sort of first-wort hopping is best for it.
But the alpha-acid quantity should *not* be reduced, even if one
gets more bitterness than one would get in the usual way.  The
tasting panel results seem to indicate that the bitterness in the FWH
beers was fine, and mild--i.e. there is little harshness that can
appear in a highly bittered beer.  If the hops are reduced to
compensate for the extra IBUs one gets from the first-wort hops,
then the whole benefit of doing it might be lost.  The recommendation
is to use at least 30% of the total hops as first- wort
hops--basically, this means adding the aroma hops as first-wort hops
rather than late kettle additions (at least for my setup, and I 
suspect for many others' too).

That's my quick 'n' dirty summary.  I found the article quite 
readable, aside from the parts where the technical info is too far 
afield for me to make much sense of it (e.g. the gas chromatography 
results).  Hopefully this will give a baseline that interested 
readers can refer to for what will undoubtedly be a fairly extensive 
discussion of this topic.

One quick comment: Bob McCowan mentioned, quite correctly, that the 
above commentary applies to infused beers--in decocted beers, 
comparatively little break is formed in early part of the boil, so 
one needs to consider this.  If I read the Brauwelt article properly, 
infusion beers were the only ones being discussed.

Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"...we are usually at the mercy of gravity."  ---A.J. deLange
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au WWW: http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html
                ...I'm not from here, I just live here...

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 16:34:06 -0600
From: Dave Corio <dcorio at inav.net>
Subject: Bottle washing

As I novice I would sure appreciate a critique of my bottle washing
techniques. As I empty one I simply rinse the dregs and store in the case.
When I'm ready to bottle a batch I run the empties through the dishwasher
(only at 140 degrees). I then use a vertical pump to blast a shot of weak
bleach/water into the bottle, and rinse using a faucet bottle washer. The
bottles air-dry upside down on a bottle tree while I prepare the brew for
bottling. The only variation I've used is to substitute iodine for the
bleach (per another local brewer). 
   I'm currently brewing my 7th batch, so still very new at this, so any
suggestions/ideas/criticisms will be graciously accepted! Thanks in advance.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:03:06 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Admonishing and The Evil Advance Title List...

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

*School-master rant mode activated. Please duck when necessary*

In the last several issues, everyone takes a kick at Ken Schwartz's 
head, among other repetitive tripe...

Hey, folks! Didn't Rob add that rather nifty feature where you get an 
advance listing of posting titles FOR A REASON?!?!?!?!?!?

Who's the next genius gonna be to step up to the plate and take a
swing at the difference between 20 and 15 amp wiring? Kind of like
"If I told you once, I've told ya a hundred times" - ONLY
LITERALLY!!! 

YES I'M TALKIN' TO YOU - HEY! LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU!!!

Please, folks: we asked for that feature to avoid such male bovine
excrement as what has just passed for information here. The ones
appearing in that first issue following Ken's (or any other
offending)  post - you're excused. You had no idea that you were
just duplicating each others' efforts - though it would have been
cool if a few of ya considered the possibility and cancelled. THE
REST OF YOU BOZOS ARE STAYING AFTER SCHOOL TODAY! Go the keyboard and
write a million-billion times: "I will read the response from the
Digest and see if I'm a replicant." You may use a macro.

And don't feel bad about stayin' after - we're ALL Bozos on this 
bus... 

*School-master rant mode deactivated. You can get back up now.*

Please dial in flames to 1-800-SWIG-BUD (Kinda the brewers' 
equivalent to 1-800-EAT-... well, you get the drift.   =)

See ya!

Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock at oeonline.com  URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Sysop: HomeBrew University - Motor City Campus
(313)397-7915 8,n,1, 24 hours daily. Immediate and
full access at initial logon!


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:22:02 -0600
From: (by way of "Jeremy E. Mirsky" <mirsjer at charlie.acc.iit.edu>)
Subject: frustrated homebrewer




Hi, folks...

As a relatively new homebrewer (still with extract and a grain bag), I 
have come to realize that I haven't had much variability between the 4 or 
so batches that I've brewed over the past year or so.

Several times, I have used Northwestern extract.  Could this be a problem?
My beers (pale ales) have been too sweet.  Actually, my last batch was 
based (very closely) on Papazian's Vallalia IPA recipe, although I used 
more hops than he suggested.... Still, not hoppy enough, didn't really 
seem like an IPA to me.  There have been no infections. 

That last one was dry hopped as well.  I'm not quite ready yet to throw 
in the towel on homebrewing yet, but I want to figure out why I seem to 
be getting similar results with significantly different recipes.

Would amylase enzyme eliminate the sweetness? Or is this just inherent in
extract beers?


Also, if I were to construct a somewhat crude wort chiller, what is the 
recommended diameter of the copper tubing (for an immersion chiller)?

Is there a formula for calculating the proper amount of priming sugar
required after taking into consideration beer lost due to blowoff, etc.?  My
lPA was extremely overcarbonated (1 part ale to 3 parts foam).

Finally, when using grains in a strainer bag before adding extracts, is it
necessary or desirable to 'sparge' and/or wring out the sack of grain into
the boiling kettle?


Ok, no more questions from me...
Thanks for any help

JM
Jeremy Mirsky
mirsjer at charlie.acc.iit.edu




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:15:52 -0500
From: bob at carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: oak in lager

i have had a lager in the fridge (high 30s) for a while. i have been
watching the co2 bubbles on the surface to decide when it's done. they were
just about gone so i decided that the beer was about done fermenting, so i
dropped in a 6 inch length of chared oak dowel. (thanks to those who
responded to my post about that). now after a few days, there is renewed
activity. does anyone have any ideas? maybe the oak has o2 that the yeast
are now using? if that's the case could this be a "cure" for stuck
fermentation? 

bob rogers
bob rogers,  bob at carol.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:21:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay.Betrug at mail-e2a-service.gnn.com
Subject: Racist newsgroup proposal alert!

There is currently a proposal for the newsgroup rec.music.white-power,
an attempt by neo-nazi racists to legitimize their activities. It is now
in the CFV stage, where anyone with a valid e-mail address may vote.

"White power" racist music is not a legitimate form of music deserving of
a separate rec.music newsgroup, but rather a political group masquerading
as a musical one. And, the rec.* hierarchy is inappropriate because rec.*
is for recreational activities, and racism is anything but recreational.

But, most importantly, we must show the racists that they will not be
granted a mainstream forum in order to promote hate. If you don't want
a Usenet where minorities feel unwelcome and uncomfortable, vote NO on
rec.music.white-power. Let's make this a crushing defeat for racists.

To vote, send e-mail to music-vote at sub-rosa.com and put

I vote NO on rec.music.white-power

in the body of the message.

The actual CFV can be found on news.announce.newsgroups,
or by sending a blank e-mail to music-cfv at sub-rosa.com.

Voting ends 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Mar 1996, so act quickly!


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 01:04:04 -0500
From: bob at carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: recent trip to tennessee

thanks so much to those who posted about my query for brewpubs in
west/central tennessee (there were about 14 of you). if you want to know
what i thought about my trip, see:
http://www.carol.net/~bob/beer.htm
i don't have a scanner yet, so it is all text.
bob
bob rogers,  bob at carol.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:04:38 +0100
From: mitch at molbio.su.se (Mitch Dushay)
Subject: Science in beer

On 14.3 Pat Babcock wrote:
 ....recent government studies have shown detrimental effects on yeast from
exposure to plaid....
Thanks for sharing the authoritative voice of Science Pat;)  So many homebrew
enthusiasts rely on hearsay and legend - it's nice to see the real thing
now and then.  It's also gratifying to know that someone's Science has real
application to real life:)

Mitch Dushay  (PhD)          email:   mitch at molbio.su.se
Developmental Biology
Wenner-Gren Institute
Stockholm University
S-106 91 Stockholm   Sweden



Return to table of contents


Date: 18 Mar 96 08:17:01 EST
From: aesoph at ncemt1.ctc.com (Aesoph, Michael)
Subject: Distilled Beverage Summary....

Dear Collective:



	The responses to my inquiry about homemade distilled beverages fell in 
two broad categories:



1.	It's illegal, you can go to jail

2.	It's dangerous unless you know exactly what you are doing



Therefore, I will not be distilling any beverages!!!



					Mike Aesoph


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:38:56 -0600
From: COLLICR1 at MAIL.STATE.WI.US
Subject: Apple Beer Recipe?


The New Glarus Brewery here in Wisconsin makes an Apple Beer that I would
like to attempt copying.  It is hopped and I believe it is both malt and
cider based.  Being very new at home brewing (3 ciders, 2 beers) I am not
sure where to even begin with this one.  Any recipe suggestions would be
very much appreciated.

Craig

Return to table of contents


Date:       18 MAR 96 09:04:15 EST
From: PWhite at os.dhhs.gov
Subject:    Re: Calories Revisited

shelby & gary <gjgibson at ioa.com> added some interesting comments to the 
discussion on how the body handles the alcohol once it's ingested.  In it he 
states that a few of the calories in the beer may be negated because the 
body has to perform work to detoxify the alcohol.  This may be true, however 
I seem to recall having read an article about a study that was conducted in 
sweden(?) on the effects of alocohol metabolism.  As I recall (It was a 
while ago that I read this) the finding was that individuals who included 
alcohol in their daily diet gained more weight than individuals who did not 
and had the same total daily caloric intake.  The proposed theory was that 
the alcohol slowed down the metabolism.  Food for thought anyway(no pun 
intended;-)

He also gives the stats that college students with "A" avearges drink 3.5 
drinks a week and those with D's and F's drink 11.  Having had a minimal 
amount of statistical training and having worked with statisticians in the 
pentagon I find myself a little skeptical of such numbers.  I always wonder 
how the study was conducted, for example was it a survey of a psych 
professors classes where the students with A averages had a vested interest 
in maintaining a certain image with the prof and those with D's and F's 
didn't care?  Or was it conducted by A-B?(judging by the conclusions 
probably not)  Also remember that the drinking age in most states is 21 
meaning that it is more difficult for freshmen and sophores to get alcohol. 
 The introductory courses taught to freshmen are usually easier to maintain 
good grades in.  No flames intended here I'm just trying to show the world 
what a cynic I can be.


Phil White                         Haven't you ever heard of a 
pwhite at os.dhhs.gov                 Rhetorical question before?


Return to table of contents


Date:    Mon, 18 Mar 96 09:13 EST
From: "Lee A. Kirkpatrick" <WPSSLAK%WMMVS.BITNET at VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: Cherry Fever Stout w/ canned cherries

I thought I'd report the results of a recent experiment, as I
received lots of good advice from this forum back when I was
planning it.

I followed the recipe from Papazian for "Cherry Fever Stout" to
the letter, using a liquid ale yeast (Wyeast 1056) and substituting
5 lb of canned, pitted tart cherries in water (no sugar or syrup).
I just tasted it after two and a half weeks in the bottle (following
a month-long secondary fermentation).  The result so far is a big,
rich, bitter stout (much to my liking), but with only a hint of
cherry.  I plan to keep most of it until about next fall to let
it age a little, hoping that with time the bitterness will
smooth out a bit and let the cherry tartness come through.
Unless it changes fairly substantially, though, I'd recommend
more cherries or a little less bittering hops for better balance.
By the way, I added the cherries (including packing water) in
the primary: just dumped them into the bottom of my fermenter
and poured the partially-cooled wort from my cookpot on top
of them.  I left the cherries behind when racking to secondary
after about 10 days.

I'm sure we would all agree that fresh or frozen cherries would
be superior, but these unfortunately weren't available at the
time.  I figured that the canned cherries should be safe, given
that they were packed only in water with no sugar or other
additives.  However, I suppose one might need to use a greater
amount of the canned to get the same degree of cherry tartness
and flavor as one would get from fresh.  Any more thoughts on this?

- --Lee Kirkpatrick
  wpsslak at wmmvs.cc.wm.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 08:27:40 mst
From: "Barry Blakeley" <BlakeleB at den.disa.mil>
Subject: How you say, "De groovy?"

     
          Simple question for those of you who have actual interpersonal 
     communication regarding brewing:
     
                How is "Wyeast" pronounced?  I realize some disagreement 
     may exist, especially since I ran into a brewshop employee who says, 
     "Moonish" instead of "Munich" (or better yet "Munchen").  Or maybe I 
     should skip it and stick with Yeast Labs or Red Star.
     
        Please clue me in so I can communicate like the hip brewer I 
     consider myself to be.  Thanks, eh!
     

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Those aliens from the 8th dimension?  I'm looking at
  them right now!"

      Barry Blakeley        blakeleb at den.disa.mil
     Denver, Colorado

   If I had 3 stars, my opinion would be that of the
       Defense Information Systems Agency.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 11:28:44 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: more genetic drift, distilling

In Digest #1986:
folsom at ix.netcom.com (Alan Folsom) wrote:
"I'm curious.  Since most yeast strains claim to be cultured from a 
single cell (and we are taught to do that when propogating yeast), and 
since yeast reproduction is via budding rather than sexual 
reproduction, how do we get yeast which are not genetically identical 
without mutation?
[snip]
Thanks,
Al F."

Good question. The answer is, through selection of variants which arise via
mutation and genetic drift. (BTW, there's a difference between cultureing
from a single cell and a single colony. Noonan covers this in his book on
Lager.)


and Mitch Hogg <bu182 at freenet.toronto.on.ca> wrote:
"Distillation is quite illegal (at least in the US and 
Canada), the primary reason for which is that it is potentially harmful."

Actually, I think the real reason is TAXES! Uncle Sam wants his cut.
Distillation is not really that dangerous. Home canning is potentially just
as lethal as running a still, in terms of both explosions and the
possibility for poisoning.

Mitch then goes on to say:
"Dennis Davison's eisbock article in Zymurgy (winter 1995), freezing beer or 
wine and removing the non-alcoholic ice crystals that form is not legally 
distillation but "fractional crystallisation", and is perfectly 
above-board."

I read the article but I think he's wrong. The BATF considers this to be
essentially the same as distillation. This excuse won't work: "I wasn't
concentrating the ethanol in my beer, I was just concentrating the water".
Whether one 'removes' the concentrated brew OR the ice (i.e. water), the
effect is the same and it's a felony! I think if you contact the BATF,
they'll tell you in no uncertain terms that making eisbock or applejack (or
whatever: concentrating alcohol by freezing) is illegal unless you have a US
distillers license.
    Tracy in Vermont
    aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:46:37 -0500
From: HOMEBRE973 at aol.com
Subject: Victoria, BC visit

Hi All,

I will be going to Victoria, BC and Vancouver in a few weeks and would like
recommendations on beer/pub/brewery related places to visit.  Private e-mail
will be fine.
TIA,
Andy Kligerman

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:14:03 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com>
Subject: Starters, moonshine, misc.


> From: Regan Pallandi <reganp at iris.bio.uts.EDU.AU>
> Subject: Why build up starters?
> 
> Hello all - I am wondering about the practice of building up yeast 
> starters into ever increasing volumes of wort (ie 500ml->1000ml->2000ml). 
> Why not just pitch the few cells into the large volume to begin with, and 
> do away with the steps in the middle? I would have thought, aside from 
> maybe a longer lag time, the yeast will multiply up to the limit of the 
> available nutrient, and it would be easier to just make up the desired  
> volume of starter and leave it at that. None of the books I've read make 
> any mention of the reason for "steps". Any ideas?

I'm not sure why this isn't addressed in these books.  Essentially, there are
two reasons.  One is a general "it tastes better" that with a larger pitch
per volume, the yeast ferment in better health, because they spend more 
energy making alcohol and other delicious chemicals and less energy making 
more yeast.  I don't know if I fully buy this explanation, but it does taste
better.

The other reason, which I do understand, is that pitching more yeast per volume
reduces the risk of infection.  In evolutionary terms, beer yeast are competing 
with other organisms (other yeasts, lactic bacteria, mold, etc.) for a limited
resource (wort sugars and nutrients).  The beer yeast, understandably, want
all that sugar to themselves.  So they excrete chemicals which make it harder
for these other organisms to survive.  (eg ethanol.)  The change in pH of the
wort and alcohol level makes it harder for these infections to take hold.  The
more yeast you pitch per unit volume, the faster they can get the alcohol 
level and pH to a point where other organisms have a hard time taking a 
foothold.  Think of the extreme case - pitch only one cell of ale yeast into
a 5 gallon carboy of wort.  Yeah, if your wort and equipment is 100% sterile,
that one cell's progeny will -eventually- ferment the whole batch.  But, if 
you drop a single cell of something else in there, they are on much more even
footing.

On a more relevant note, I wear plaid when I brew.  Why?  I once brewed while 
wearing a tie and nice slacks.  The whole batch had to be dumped, it tasted 
just like Budweiser.

> From: Mitch Hogg <bu182 at freenet.toronto.on.ca>
> Subject: Distillation: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time

> Don't even think about it. Or if you do, for your own sake don't tell anyone 
> you're doing it. Distillation is quite illegal (at least in the US and 
> Canada), the primary reason for which is that it is potentially harmful. 

Actually, the main reason that it's illegal is that it's much easier to hide
a non-regulated commercial distillery than a non-regulated commercial brewery.
If you're illegally selling your homebrew, you've got to move a lot of it 
before you start making a profit.  It's much harder to hide 100-1000 gallons 
of illegal beer sales a week than 20-30 gallons of illegal moonshine.

> The stakes are much higher for distillation than fermentation. To wit, if 
> you screw up your beer, it tastes bad; if you screw up a distilled beverage, 
> it could kill you (or at least make you good and sick). 

And there is a great risk of fire and explosion (cool, huh huh) when 
distilling.

> In fact, a friend of 
> mine who runs a wine supply shop was once visited by the police, who 
> told her that if anyone ever came in even asking about distillation she 
> was to notify the authorities immediately. She hasn't, of course 

I don't know Canadian law, but if a cop did that in the US, that would be
very stupid.  Essentially, that's not legal for the cop to do, and even if
your friend was totally uninvolved in a case, someone might be able to wriggle
out of the charge and get off scott-free if it became known that he was 
trying to gather information in this way.  (If the crook's lawyers were good,
that is.)

> (I don't think merely thinking about distilling is illegal yet), 

No, but talking about it on e-mail might be, pretty soon.  (Especially if
you post special abortion techniques involving moonshine...)

> However, if you really want 
> distilled/fortified beverages, do not despair; there are other, safer 
> ways to do it. The first option is freeze distillation. According to 
> Dennis Davison's eisbock article in Zymurgy (winter 1995), freezing beer or 
> wine and removing the non-alcoholic ice crystals that form is not legally 
> distillation but "fractional crystallisation", and is perfectly 
> above-board.

I've been told that it's illegal.  Maybe it's a state to state variation, but
I'm under the impression that you can't do that in a lot of places.  

> The other option is fortification. I have made brandy, 
> port, and sherry by adding a bottle of grain alcohol or vodka to the 
> appropriate type of wine.

And you could make Zima with the appropriate amount of grain alcohol to tonic
water, too!  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)  

> From: saunderm at vt.edu (J. Matthew Saunders)
> Subject: Brewing in Fishtanks

> 4)  Make sure that the caulking inside *IS* rated safe for food.  Make sure
> that the acidic wort won't break down the caulking.


That would be my primary concern with that.  I'd guess it's not a very good 
idea.  Aren't fishtanks really expensive, too.

> From: dharsh at alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
> Subject: CO2 in what form?

At regular or reduced pressure, CO2 doesn't -have- a liquid form.  I'd guess
'vapor pressure' is the pressure at which it can form a liquid.  Maybe the
frost line is from a little liquidization, or maybe it's from some of it 
solidifying in the bottom.

 -R

Return to table of contents


Date:        Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:19:27 EST
From: "FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS" <BFINLEY at MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: brewpubs in Fla.

I'm planing a trip to Florida in the comming months, and I want
to try out some brewpubs there.  More than likely I will be in the
Destin, Ft. Walton Bch, Panama City area of the panhandle.
Anyone have any suggestions as to any brewpubs in this area.
Nothing finishes of a day of deep sea fishing better than a good
chilled mug of brew.
B. Finley
Biological Sciences
University of Georgia

Return to table of contents


Date:        Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:23:11 EST
From: "FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS" <BFINLEY at MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: carbonation process

I have just bottled my first batch of homebrew last week.
How long does it take for the brew to carbonate?  Are there any signs
that ensure that proper carbonation is occuring? When I bottled, the
pale ale smelled wonderful and I can't wait to find out how everything
is going to turn out.
B.F.
Biological Sciences
University of Georgia

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:43:42 -0800 (PST)
From: ad339 at freenet.unbc.edu (Edwin Thompson)
Subject: Grain Bag



Could anyone help me out on the difference between a grain bag and a 
sparging bag?  I've obtained one cheap but need to know basic things, 
like how is it meant to be used and is it washable.  The man who's 
selling it had never used either so he's no help.  
Any info would be appreciated

				Yours
					Ed.



- --


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:42:48 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: CO2 in what form? 

All CO2 tanks should have their "tare weight" stamped on them
somewhere.  This is what the tank weighs empty.  For example, my 5lb
tank is stamped "11.8".  When it's full, it weighs almost 17 lbs
(11.8 + 5 = 16.8).

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:12:38 -0600
From: keithfrank at dow.com (Keith Frank)
Subject: Bristletail Ale (Bugs in my beer)

****** From Mark DeWeese ******

Brewers:

While bottling my latest batch of ale this past weekend, I 
experienced something I'd like to share with all of you.

When I bottle my beer, I usually run the bottles through the hot rinse
cycle in my dishwasher to clean them prior to filling. This time
however, in addition to these bottles, I used some that had been cleaned,
dried, and stored in a closed cardboard box several months earlier.

I didn't concern myself with the bottles from the box. I knew that they'd 
been cleaned well, dried, and safely stored away in a closed container 
~ no problem, right?

Well, after I fill and cap bottles, I always wipe any spillage from the
outside and put them in a dry case container. As I was doing this, I
noticed something floating in the neck of one of the bottles of beer.
On closer inspection, I found this to be a bug - an insect, you know,
a critter with six legs.

Anyway, I found a total of nine bottles containing bugs. The bugs were
the little weevels you find in grain and cereal. A couple of the bottles
contained silverfish (I'm considering calling this beer "Bristletail Ale").

I uncapped the "bugged bottles", poured the bugs out and recapped.

Insects such as bristletails (i.e.; silverfish and firebrats) like to
dine on starchy things like wallpaper glue, and cardboard box glue. The
bugs fell into the bottles because they were stored upright in the box.
I probably could have avoided this had the bottles been stored mouths-
down.

By the way, I assume the bugs to have been dead prior to filling the 
bottles with beer, and they probably had been so for quite some time.

Has anyone ever experienced a similar situation? Do you think the bugs
have spoiled the beer?


Bugged in Brazosport...

Mark DeWeese
c/o keithfrank at dow.com


 
  

Return to table of contents