---

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


Contents:
  lagering temperature stratification (Kathy Booth)
  Brown Oxide Ale (Paul Ward)
  Malt Mills (Robert Servranckx)
  Wyeast 1968 andthe incredible extraction machine... ("Pat Babcock")
  Re- Reculturing Triples/Sai ("Mark Tomusiak")
  Odd Hop Varities ("Clark D. Ritchie")
  hot/cold break-dissolving? (Charlie Scandrett)
  my water treatment error (Rob Lauriston)
  Stella (Glenn Raudins)
  competition reminder (Ray Brice)
  Historical Trivia ("Olson, Greger J - CI/911-2")
  Sources for a large (30qt or so) pressure canner for sterilization (Murray Anderegg)
  Griping and grousing. (Russell Mast)
  Wyeast Ale Test (dhvanvalkenburg)
  Using a 2ndary/irish moss/ups (charles epp)
  Old yeast into boil? (P. Edwards)
  UPS, hopping liberty ale and achor steam (HOMEBRE973)
  Archive file decompression (Orval Jewell)
  Re: Search and Seizure (Tidmarsh Major)
  Louvier's water analysis (Raymond Louvier)
  Dilute Bleach Solution (Mike_Bell)
  Resuspension of break material... ("Pat Babcock")



******************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 07:42:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kathy Booth <kbooth at isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
Subject: lagering temperature stratification

	Greetings.  The chest freezer I lager in went kaput and I'm 
trying to chill by freezing plastic milk containers of water in an 
upright and then placing them in the broken chest freezer.  The 
temperature at the top of the fermenters is 49 degrees F and at the 
bottom the temp is 38 d F.  

	As the yeast is more at the bottom, is that the effective lagering
 temperature?  Has anybody lagered under similar circumstances of 
stratified temperatures and how did it work out?   Thanks and Cheers Jim 
Booth, Lansing, MI

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:50:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Ward <paulw at doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Brown Oxide Ale

OK, I'm stupid at times, I'll admit it, but jeesh.....

I had brewed Papazian's Elbro Nerkte, followed directions to the
letter this time, and was feeling really good about the beer.  It
looked and smelled fantastic as I was bottling yesterday, maybe a
little too sweet, I have to improve my hop utilization.

Anyway,...after bottling about 24 bottles I slapped my forehead
and said, "Oh, shucks!" (or something to that effect).  I forgot
to add priming sugar (how do you spell 'DOH!').  Being a creature
of habit, I imediatley threw my 3/4 c. corn sugar into 2 cups of
water and set it on to boil as I uncapped 24 bottles of beer. 
Now at this point it dawned on me that, had I kept the sugar as
powder, I could have just added some to each of the bottles, and
then boiled the rest to add to the bottling bucket.  Sigh.  So I
did the next illogical thing and emptied the 24 bottles of beer
back into the bottling bucket, assuring that all 5 gallons would
be equally oxidized.  I added the cooled sugar solution, stirred,
and re-bottled.

So anyway, I now have 5 gallons of oxidized brown ale.  What's it
gonna taste like?  Should I plan on drinking this one quickly, 
letting it age longer to mellow out, or just quitting and giving
it away?

Am I going to have to turn in my learner's permit?

Paul (Gump) Ward    paulw at doc.state.vt.us

- -- 
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what of humanitarians?

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 10:33:22 -0700
From: Robert Servranckx <Robert_Ser at ceo.sts-systems.ca>
Subject: Malt Mills

Fellow HBDers,
 
I am looking to purchase a malt mill. My local homebrew supply shop
has two that are within my price range: a PhilMill (125$ Cnd) and a 
three-roller Italian mill (95$ Cnd). I've previously used the PhilMill
and like its results, but I've never heard of this three-roller
Italian mill... So, before dishing out an additional 30$ for a PhilMill,
I thought I'd give the collective a chance to comment on the three-roller
Italian mill first... Has anyone used this mill before and is it any good
and worth the money? I love to get some feedback...

Thanks in advance.
Rob in Montreal
Robert_Ser at ceo.sts-systems.ca

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:44:47 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Wyeast 1968 andthe incredible extraction machine...

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

In HBD 2003,  Dutch sez...

> Hi HBD this will be my first posting to the digest.

Hi! And welcome! Here's my two-bit analysis of what you've said...

> I use Wyeast 1968 for almost every ale I brew and have also found
> it not to be very(?) anttenuative.  The yeast I use I get from a
> brew pub (Barley's ale house no.1 Columbus, OH.) I help brew there
> sometimes and can stop in and get yeast whenever I need some.  I
> have used varying amounts (from 2oz to 8oz packed yeast) for
> pitching and have not found the amount to affect the the FG.  In

The pitching rate normally _won't_ affect the FG; just the rate at
which you get there. A larger, healthier population will ferment the
sugars faster, that's all. The "banquet" is the same size - just a
whole lot more dining on it.

> the last batch I brewed I agitated my primary (after 3 days) and
> secondary (after 4 & 7 days) fermenters by swirling and found the
> fermentation rate to increase. My thought was this stuff packs so
> fast and so tight that maybe I need to get the yeast back into
> suspention (the brewer at Barley's thought I was crazy.)  So anyway

Don't know why a "professional" brewer would think that rousing the 
yeast would be crazy. Common practice, particularly with highly 
flocculent strains. Don't be fooled into thinking that the bubbling 
you get immediately after swirling the fermenter is an increase in 
the rate of fermentation, though. Not only will swirling the 
fermenter get the yeast back ingot suspension, but it will also knock 
a lot of the CO2 out of solution, causing increased bubbling of the 
airlock...

> I forgot to take a final gravity reading (Duh) but the beer was
> definatly more atenuated then the brew before that used the same
> recipe.  My findings were recently confermed when I got a copy of

Without that hydrometer reading, it's hard to tell whether rousing 
had any affect at all. I've had increase fermentation by rousing 1968 
in some recipes, none in others. 1968 is a sluggish fermenter at 
best. As indicated it floccs out pretty quickly once the turbulence 
of the kraeusen is past.

> The recipe I tried this with was an IPA.
> 8 lbs Alexanders Pale syrup
> 1-1/2 lb Muton & Fison Lt. DME
> 1/2 lb 20l crystal
> 4 oz centenial (whole leaf) hops alpha 11.4
>        2 oz boil
>        1 oz finish
>        1 oz dry
> 1/2 oz hungarian med toast oak
> 1/2 oz freanch med toast oak
>         no steaming, 2 weeks in secondary

Expected OG of roughly 1.078.

> Yesterday I tried this recipie but substituted 10 lbs klages for
> 4lbs of alexanders and 1-1/2 lb Mf/lt. OG 1072 which is a little
> low, I stopped my collection of the run off to soon. (I don't think
> I eill use that 1010 rule any more.) I like big beers!!!! 

72 * 5 / 10 = 36 pg/p - A phenomenal extraction rate! Most brewers
strain to achieve 30, let alone 36. You sure about these numbers?!?
If so, you're a little confused. That OG isn't low for the grain bill
 - it's huge! (Yes, in comparison to the extract recipe, the OG is
lower; however, you really can't ask for much more out of ten pounds
of barley!) Whatever you did, keep doing it. You've achieved as near
a lab-mash as any I've seen...

To up the gravity in future batches, up the grain bill. The 1.010 
rule-of-thumb is more to protect your brew from defects resulting 
from rinsing nasty stuff from the grain than it is to ensure you get 
all the sugars.

See ya!

Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock at oeonline.com  URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Take advantage of the Drinkur Purdee document echo!
Send a note to pbabcock at oeonline.com with the word
help on the subject line to see what's on tap!


Return to table of contents


Date: 8 Apr 1996 08:11:30 -0800
From: "Mark Tomusiak" <Mark.Tomusiak at amgen.com>
Subject: Re- Reculturing Triples/Sai

                      Subject:                              Time:  7:44 AM
  OFFICE MEMO         Re: Reculturing Triples/Saisons       Date:  4/8/96

Hi Mark...read your question about culturing yeasts from Triples/Saisons =
with interest.  I don't know about the Rochefort yeast, but I recently =
cultured the yeast from a bottle of Dupont "Avec les Bons Voeux" (a =
Christmas beer from Dupont, but very much in the saison style), and to my =
surprise it started growing very quickly.  I was able to plate some out =
and examine the culture under a microscope;  colony morphology appeared =
uniform on the plates and I couldn't see anything but yeast under the =
scope, so I decided to try it in a batch.  It's two weeks in the bottle =
now and I haven't tried any yet, but I can say that it produced a very =
vigorous fermentation.  I did note some banana esters when I bottled it, =
but I don't know if those will stick around or not.  Hope this helps and =
good luck,

Mark Tomusiak
Boulder, Colorado


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 08:16:15 -0700
From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie at ups.edu>
Subject: Odd Hop Varities

All,

After discovereing a few inconsistencies between the Hop FAQ and other hop
literature on the Net, I am compiling a list of different hop varities and
need some help.

Does anyone know anything (specifically the AA%) about:
1. Comet
2. Huller
3. Orion
4. Super Styrian
5. Viking
6. Yeoman

Also, this might be a stupid question, but I've seen references to [just]
Goldings.  Is this short for BC and/or East Kent Goldings?  Is [just]
Goldings another variety altogether or are there others?

Similarly, I've also seen references to [just] Hallertauer.  Is this short
for Mittelfrueh and/or Hersbrucker?  Is [just] Hallertauer another variety
altogether or are there others?

TIA... CDR
Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie at ups.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 00:22:42 +1000
From: merino at cynergy.com.au (Charlie Scandrett)
Subject: hot/cold break-dissolving?


In HBD #2005,  Matthew A. Wuerstl wrote,

>Subject: hot break and immersion chillers...
>Anyway, one question I saw and never read an answer to, was will the
>coagulated proteins in the hot break go back into solution if you
>chill the wort this way.
<SNIP>
> After boiling the canned wort for
>30 minutes in a water bath, I removed the jars and noticed that the
>wort was crystal clear, with big clumps of protein on the bottom of
>each jar. The jars were left to cool and seal on the counter overnight.
>When I checked them this morning, the wort had become cloudy again and
>the protein sediment looked more loosely concentrated and was tending
>to float apart. 
>Any comments?

The "hot break" is denatured medium to high molecular weight proteins in
complex  with other things. This means that the hydrogen and disulphide
bonds that hold these polypeptides in their pleated, helical  and globular
shapes have been broken, leaving sites exposed for intermolecular bonds to
form "flocs" (gooey lumps), usually with polyphenolics and tannins and
starch and lipids and iso-alpha acids etc. The solubility of these proteins
is also changed because their electrical polarity is changed by this
denaturing. The net polarity of various proteins gives them a pH of minimum
solubility called their "isoelectric point", but the structure also
influences solubility and colloidal dispersability.

Cooling may change the pH slightly and affect the strength of floc bonding?
I do know it cannot "renature" proteins, i.e. rebuild the broken structures,
they are simply too complex to reform. The only way to redissolve hot break
is to boil the hell out of it for hours on end until the denatured
polypeptides (a little like a ball of spaghetti) break down into simple
polypeptides, ( a few peptides joined in linear structure, like short 1"
bits of spaghetti) these are highly soluble.

Cold break is simpler hot break,( i.e. the polypeptides and polyphenolics
are less complex, hence more soluble) with a much higher and variable lipid
content. Anyone who has watched a fatty scum form on a cooling bowl of soup
will realise that fatty things are less soluble at colder temperatures,
hence Matthew's cloudy jars the following morning. They also tend to rise,
hence the success of seperating cold break by flotation during aeration, and
hence its slower settling period.

Cold break contains nothing that can redissolve hot break, you *can* cool in
the kettle safely with immersion chillers.

The Protein FAQ I'm working on is almost finished and will take up a whole
HBD soon.

Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 08:32 PDT
From: robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: my water treatment error

Could someone help me out here?  (I need it!)

After a long while brewing with my water as is, I began treating my water
with gypsum (CaSO4) by adding it directly to the mash. 

I'm wondering how many other people may be doing the same thing that I was
- -- adding all of their salts to the mash, and calculating the amount of
salts according to the total amount of beer  being made rather than
according to the amount of mash water.  Since the volume of mash water is
less than the amount of beer, I end up with higher concentrations than
intended, no?  I should use more salts for a thin mash than for a thick one
to arrive at the same ppms?    I was (am) confused by not really thinking
about what I was doing, and by articles that talk about how much salt you
have to add for a five gallon batch.

My other question was about a shortcut I've been taking, adding the gypsum
with the grist when I am mashing in.  How would this be different from
treating all the mash water first?  Generally it would mean that I'm mashing
with untreated water for the first few minutes, but what would be the
specific effects?  I'm doing a temperature program mash starting at around
60'C in a thin mash, but protecting B-amylase at the very beginning
shouldn't be a problem, should it?  For things that happen in the boil
(sulphates and hops) it shouldn't matter?

I'm starting with quite soft water, pH 7.0, total alkalinity 23, bicarbonate
23, carbonate 0 mg/L all given as CaCO3; calcium 0.6 mg/L and sulphate 8
mg/L.  I've been adding 30 g gypsum to make 55 litres of beer.

Thanks in advance,

- -- Rob Lauriston




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: raudins at lightscape.com (Glenn Raudins)
Subject: Stella


In reference to my question about what beers are to be had in Egypt, I went
and saw.  Stella is the beer of choice (It happens to be the only choice.)
There is Stella and Stella Export, the export is harder to find.  All in all,
for the only beer available it is better than the standard American Lager on
the market here.  It is served in what appears to be about 20 oz bottle, just
a bit smaller than a bomber bottle.  It sold from around $2.50 to $3.00 in the
tourist traps.

Glenn Raudins

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:09:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: Ray Brice <ray at hwr.arizona.edu>
Subject: competition reminder

Reminder:,

The 3rd Annual Naked Pueblo Homebrew Competition will
take place Saturday April 21st at:

        Trios in the Plaza Palomino
        corner of Swan and Ft. Lowell
        Tucson, Arizona 

First Round Judging will begin at 10:00.

Best of Show Judging will begin at 2:00.

Awards ceremony will begin at 5:00.

This competition will be held in conjunction with "The
Great Tucson Beer Festival." All judges and stewards
will be given free admittance to this event.

This is an AHA and BJCP sanctioned competition featuring
all AHA categories.  Please contact John Francisco 
(520) 743-7961; cisco at tabasco.ccit.arizona.edu or
Jim Liddil (520) 881-8768; jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu for
a free entrants packet. 
Complete on-line registration for entries and judges
is available on the Competition Homepage 
(http://www.hwr.arizona.edu/agu/oph/naked.html).

Winner's of each category will receive awards. Best of Show
will receive a $100 gift certificate to the Home Brewery in
Sierra Vista, Arizona.  2nd and 3rd place in each category will
receive ribbons. 

Cheers,

John Francisco

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Apr 96 08:25:00 PDT
From: "Olson, Greger J - CI/911-2" <gjolson at bpa.gov>
Subject: Historical Trivia


I recently looked through a combination recipe/advice/advertisements book 
given to my grandmother after she got married in Tacoma back in 1928.  There 
were no less than three ads for local hopped malt extract, and this in what 
was not a particularly large city.  One of these, by Berg & Son,  touted 
their "Hop Flavored Malt Syrup" for "Hop Scotch Candy".  My question is 
this: has there ever been any common use for malt extract other than 
brewing?

I suspect each can came with:  Warning! - Do not add yeast and let ferment 
or an illegal alcoholic beverage might result! :-) 

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:26:59 -0400
From: Murray Anderegg <anderegg at divnc.com>
Subject: Sources for a large (30qt or so) pressure canner for sterilization


I'm looking for something large enough to do some decent sized starters.
In particular, I tend to use 1, 1.5 and 3 liter Luminarc (rubber gasket flip
top type) canning jars. Has anyone had success with the 3 liter jars inside
of a 22 qt canner? It seems as though the 3 liter jars are a bit too big for
a 22 qt canner.

I saw an online source, once, for a 30qt pressure canner, but I didn't save it
and haven't been able to relocate the source. Any pointers, anyone? I'll gladly
summarize in later posting.

- --Murray
- --------------------------------------------------------
- --Murray Anderegg           | Division, Inc.
murray.anderegg at divnc.com   | 431 W Franklin St #10
(+1 919) 969-1011 fax: 1016 | Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:10:35 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com>
Subject: Griping and grousing.


> From: cisco at tabasco.ccit.arizona.edu
> Subject: We are all criminals to UPS!!!!

> (Are we living in a police state
> now and no one bothered to tell us?)

As obnoxious and inconvenient as it is, they are a private company
and can pretty much do whatever they want to.  Obviously, we can go
somewhere else.  I think that shipipng homebrew should be perfectly
legal and acceptable to everyone.  Chances are they wouldn't bug you 
anyway, and after they open the package, you can still lie to them and
say it's homemade root beer.  I think they have a right to protect 
themselves from bombs and similar weird shit people might ship.  

> 2. Take your business to one of those Mailbox Etc places
> and pay the extra money to have them ship it for you.

That's what I do anyway since one of those places is a block from my house
and the nearest official UPS dropoff is a 30 minute drive, and I got no car.

> Be carefull out there - big brother UPS is watching!

They're a private business.  Taking your stuff and putting it on their 
trucks.  I think they have a right to check what's in it first.

If they were a monopoly, or in any way involved in the government, the
"police state" language would be called for.  As it is, it's just crying
wolf.  When the real police state comes, people will be so fed up with 
overstated accusations that they won't take the warnings seriously.

> From: Dan Gerth <dgerth at lanl.gov>
> Subject: Automagic scale machine

> Boy, I thought this thing died about 20 years ago.....When I was fresh out
> of school and working in the water treatment industry we used to keep a file
> of all these gizmos. 

When I was your age, sonnyboy, we used to eat inductive scale resonators for
breakfast.  And we liked it.

> These things pop
> up all the time, and they have NEVER been scientifically proven to work
> (cited studies or not). 

They have been scientifically proven to work, in limited circumstances, via 
an as-yet-unknown mechanism.  It's been in the last month or two that they
were shown to work.  So, don't say "NEVER" unless you've read every study
done on them.

I'm not trying to say these things live up to the claims they make in their
advertisements.  I'm not advising anyone to buy one without independently 
confirming they work, and maybe not even then.  I'm just saying, there IS
evidence they work, and I think people who claim to know things they don't 
need a little thump now and then.  <thump>  There ya go.

Finally, these things are useless for brewing even if they work exactly as
advertised.  So, don't buy one for your beer.

 -R

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Apr 96 10:17:46 PST
From: dhvanvalkenburg at CCGATE.HAC.COM
Subject: Wyeast Ale Test 

     I am, with the help of several club members from the Long 
     Beach Homebrewers, doing a test of the basic Wyeast ale 
     strains.  All packets were obtained at the same time with 
     the same date.  They were only a few weeks old at time of 
     popping the pouch. We are using all the same wort, half of 
     which was provided from our local brew-pub and half from 
     extract.  We did 2 gal batches in 2.8 gal carboys so that 
     we would have sufficient results from each batch to go 
     around at the club.  
     
     While the purpose of the test is to taste the different 
     strains that are fermented with the same wort and under the 
     same conditions, we noticed a dramatically different rate 
     of growth among the different strains.  I devised a way of 
     measuring the packets by laying a stick across the middle 
     of the packet with one end of the stick taped down.  The 
     height of the other end became my measure of the packet.  
     With a scale of 1-10, 10 being a fully inflated packet, 
     here is the results of those measurements.
     
     Temp. Range 68-70F
     WYEAST  TYPE      12 Hrs   24Hrs   38 Hrs 
     1007  German       1.6     3.2     7.4 
     1028  London       5       10      10 
     1056  American     5.2     10      10 
     1084  Irish        4       8.6     10 
     1098  British      6.6     10      10 
     1338  European     2.4     4       7.4 
     1728  Scottish     5       10      10 
     1968  London ESB   1.4     3       5.8
     
     They are still in the carboys and the ultimate test is in 
     sampling the results, but it looks like the race being won 
     by British 1098 which is appearing nearly finished after 
     only 2 days.  
     
     Will update as results become available.
     
     Don Van Valkenburg-----dhvanvalkenburg at CCGATE.HAC.COM


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:52:02 -0500 (EST)
From: charles epp <cepp at indiana.edu>
Subject: Using a 2ndary/irish moss/ups


1.USING A 2NDARY:  What are the collective's thoughts on using a secondary
before bottling/kegging?  I've done both -- bottled after fermenting only
in a primary and after transferring to a secondary -- and I can see only
one benefit and several costs to transferring to a 2ndary: 

benefit:  after bottling, there is less yeast sediment in the bottles, 
making it easier to pour.  (But I've never noticed any significant 
degradation due to the greater amount of yeast in my bottled beer taken 
directly from the primary, even after 8 months in the bottle.)

costs:  Using a 2ndary adds hassle and introduces some oxygen, no matter 
how careful I am. 

Thus, using only a primary (glass) has only 1 cost (less yeast in bottle)
and great benefits in less oxygen introduced.  Also, I've never had any
off-tastes from leaving the fermented beer on the yeast (and I've left it
on up to 4 weeks after the start of fermentation) (as others noted here,
there seems to be no problem with this). 

QUESTION: are there any real benefits to using a 2ndary?

2: IRISH MOSS: does using Irish Moss affect hop utilization, especially
the level of hop character in the finished beer? 

3. UPS & THE CONSTITUTION:  Pat Babcock speculates that the Constitution
will somehow prohibit UPS from inspecting our packages (if indeed they
do).  He's wrong.  The Constitution limits only what government or
government officials may do.  UPS is a private organization and, like any
other business corporation, can do whatever they want to your
constitutional rights (except for practicing discrimination, which is
prohibited by the Civil Rights Act, a congressional statute). 

Chuck

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:57:47 -0500
From: pedwards at iquest.net (P. Edwards)
Subject: Old yeast into boil?

I was browsing the book rack at the local HB retailer the other day and
came across someting I'd never heard before in a book called "50 tips for
homebrewers" or some such title.

Anyway, this book recommended that kit brewerss take the generic yeast that
came with the kit and toss it into the boiling wort, claiming that this
added nutritive value to the wort.  The book did go onto say to use a
decent dry or liquid yeast for fermenting.

Does anyone know if the claim is true? Or is it an old brewer's tale?  I
teach beginning and intermediate HB classes and tell people to use the kit
yeast to make bread, but every so often, someone who's seen this tip asks
about its veracity.

Thanks.  private e-mail is fine...

- --Paul E (pedwards at iquest.net)



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:41:33 -0400
From: HOMEBRE973 at aol.com
Subject: UPS, hopping liberty ale and achor steam

I called UPS and asked them if they open packages.  They just laughed and
said we would never have time to open packages and reseal them.  The post may
have been  an
April Fool's joke or maybe some local aberration.

On another subject, what are the current hop profiles for Liberty Ale and
Anchor Steam
and if they are dry hopped, what type is used? Also, what are their optimal
fermintation temps?

Andy Kligerman
Hillsborough, NC

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 12:51:04 -0700
From: Orval Jewell <ojewell at thegrid.net>
Subject: Archive file decompression

Hi All,

I have been reading HBD for a couple of months now. I really enjoy the 
wit and knowledge of so many of you. This is a very simple question, but 
I don't know where else to turn. I went to the archive folder for HBD 
1995 and downloaded several files. I would like to know what utility I 
need to decompress these files. The extension of the compressed files is 
z  as (1620.z) I would love to read them, so any help would be 
appreciated.

Orval

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 16:32:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Search and Seizure 



On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, in HBD #2005:
> > I just got back from UPS shipping two entries to the AHA
> > nationals and was very surprised by a new policy at UPS.
> > ALL PACKAGES WILL BE OPENED AND INSPECTED.
> 
> <SNIP> 
> 
> > Everyone should call UPS and file a formal complaint about
> > this 'police state' tactic. Don't bother complaining to the 
> > customer service representative that answers the phone,
> > ask to speak to their supervisor to file a formal compliant.
> 
> ANAL (Am Not A Lawyer), but this "policy" sounds like an invasion of 
> privacy. You know - unconstitutional? They can't even look in your 
> GARBAGE CAN without having  a warrant. What gives the UPS the right 
> to search through something that you _haven't_ discarded?
 
Hey, I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe that the crucial factor in 
this case is that the Constitution ONLY applies to the Government.  
Because UPS is a private shipper, the relationship between you the 
customer and them the shipper is purely contractual.  If you don't want 
your package opened, don't ship UPS.  It's not a "police state tactic" 
because it's not the state.  The Constitution doesn't apply.

Tidmarsh Major
tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:22:28 -0700
From: rlouvier at ix.netcom.com (Raymond Louvier)
Subject: Louvier's water analysis

Hi ya'll, Well I sure enjoyed watching my water analysis being 
evaluated. The discussions were great. I've been away from computer for 
a week and today when I logged in the information came flowing in. I 
want to thank every one of you for taking the time to help me out. I 
haven't gone through all the information but it seems my water can be 
helped. With all this newly acquired knowledge from all of you I can 
see light at the end of the tunnel.

Thanks to all,
Ray Louvier    

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:10:23 -0400
From: Mike_Bell at ccmail.va.grci.com
Subject: Dilute Bleach Solution

I have been mixing up a dilute solution of bleach, and storing it for 
several months to sanitize fermenters and associated equipment that comes 
in contact with wort.  Papazian recommends this in one of his books.  I 
prefer bleach over iodophor due to cost.  I've stored this dilute solution 
for several months and still get a strong chlorine odor from anything 
extracted from the solution.

I've noticed that if the bleach is used in low concentrations a gray sandy 
precipitate develops in the bottom of the solution after a couple of weeks. 
If stirred it won't dissolve again, but will cause the solution to become 
cloudy and will quickly precipitate again.  Higher concentrations do not 
have any indications of precipitates.

The bleach is a cheap off-brand, but it does say that the active ingredient 
is 5% sodium hypochlorite, the same as Chlorox.  Any ideas from the 
chemists in the group as to the nature of the precipitate, and the 
sanitizing effectiveness of long-stored dilute bleach solution?  I've never 
had an infection problem that I know of.

Regards,
Mike Bell

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:50:18 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Resuspension of break material...

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

In HBD 2004, Matthew A. Wuerstl talks about  hot break and immersion
chillers...

> Some observations from last nights wort canning proceedings. If I

<SNIP-A-ROONEY!>

> some other source.) Anyway, one question I saw and never read an
> answer to, was will the coagulated proteins in the hot break go
> back into solution if you chill the wort this way. Here's what I
> observed last night. I boiled up a 2 gallon starter batch of wort
> to can and use for yeast starters. I chilled in my brew kettle and

<SNIP SOME MORE. If you need to, you can read it in #2004> 

> on something like this? Any comments? 

Yeah. One: I do a very similar thingy when canning starters - the
exception being that I measure the extract directly to the jar, top
up, and pressure can. I have the jungle of break material at the
bottom of the jar; however, all my starters are crystal clear - from
the time the product is hot to to now, six months later. 

Go figure.


See ya!

Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock at oeonline.com  URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
President, Brew-Master and Chief Taste-Tester 
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery 


Return to table of contents