---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Botulism ... (Steve Alexander)
  Buffalo Theory of Beer Drinking (John Chang)
  FSA - Faucet Side Aeration; Skunkage (Hal Davis)
  freezing sour mash (kathy)
  Priming Rates (George Dietrich)
  100% Wheat/hop oil/filtering ("C&S Peterson")
  Bruheat boilers and stepped mashes (Graham Stone)
  Brass beer engines (Graham Stone)
  re:  Dropping question, again (bdebolt)
  Hacker Pschorr Recipe (Chad Bohl)
  Errors ("Bill Giffin")
  Multi Part, all grain (Tim.Watkins)
  Blonde Ale? (Tim.Watkins)
  Downtown Chicago Brewpubs (Rick Seibt)
  RE: No sparge brew ("Mercer, David")
  Re: Botulism Solved (Energo Ed)
  New rules on internet access -Reply (Michael Caprara)
  AOB Tax Forms (cathy)
  skunking (korz)
  skunking experiment and starter aeration (James R. Layton 972.952.3718 JLAY)
  sterile aeration (korz)
  trub-free starters (korz)
   (Mark Pfortmiller)
  canning wort (Dave Whitman)
  Botulism (Pat Babcock)
  Sorry (Darrin Pertschi)
  Sorry (Darrin Pertschi)
  Re: White Labs Yeast Test Results (Chris White) (Chris White)
  Botulism (NO, NOT THAT!) (Spencer W Thomas)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  brew.oeonline.com 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu 
  that says: UNSUB BEER-L

Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
  Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
			http://brew.oeonline.com/

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: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:34:33 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Botulism ...

Another endless thread ...

Botulism is uncommon - like 30 cases in the US per year. The amount of
toxin required to damage is "a few nanograms" according to the US FDA.

A fair number of the cases are infants who can actually get a
clostridium botulinum infection in their intestinal tract!!

Among adults the leading cause is improperly canned foods especially
asparagus, green beans and peppers.  Potatoes and commercial pot-pies
have been causes.  Garlic and eggplant stored in oil, salted and
smoked fish, sauteed onions and italian mascarpone cream cheese have
been sources too.

If you read the case histories from the links at
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow you'll note some human stupidity involved
 - like the guy who ate cold stew left sitting on a stovetop for three
days.

There are test kits available for toxins of some of the c.botulina, I
doubt that this is a worthwhile approach.

Sypmtoms: double vision, inability to swallow, speech difficulty,
progressive respiratory paralysis. Onset 12 to 36 hours or longer.
Duration 3 to 6 days.  Fatality rate in the US is around 65%. 

A canned wort infection seems unlikely but possible. Best to boil the
canned wort for 10 minutes before use or drop the pH below 4.6.

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: 12 Feb 97 19:57:22 EST
From: John Chang <75411.142 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Buffalo Theory of Beer Drinking

Greetings!

On the lighter side:  The Buffalo Theory of Beer Drinking and Brain Development

A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo, much like the
brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells.  The slowest buffalo
are the sick and weak, so they die off first, making it possible for the herd to
move at a faster pace.

Like the buffalo, the weak, slow brain cells are the ones that  are killed off
by excessive beer drinking and socializing, making the brain operate faster.

The moral of the story: Drink more beer, it will make you smarter.

John








Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:35:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Hal Davis <davis at planolaw.com>
Subject: FSA - Faucet Side Aeration; Skunkage

I heard tell from someone who heard it from someone else ... that the reason
folks started putting aerators on the ends of faucets is that the aeration
helps remove the chlorine. Now, if that's true, the cheapest and fastest way
to reduce or eliminate chlorine from your brewing water is to NOT fill up
your kettle with a hose (as I have been doing). Instead, fill up a vessell
in the sink and then pour it into the kettle.

Any of the chemists out there want to chase down this tale?

****************
A couple o' weeks ago I tried posting something like this, but between being
unintentionally unsubscribed from the list and the list moving around, I
don't know if it was ever posted, and I know I never got a direct to me
response. Sorry if there's repetition.

Everyone says skunkage is due primarily to light. I don't see how Heineken
is going to be exposed to light in the normal distribution chain. I'd think
that all of those bottles would be enclosed in very opaque boxes, which
would in turn spend the voyage in very opaque containers (as in "container
ship"), or opaque railroad cars, opaque ship holds, and opaque trucks. The
only place I can figure where they'd be exposed to light would be in the
retail store, where they'd be exposed to less light than beers in clear
glass that don't come out skunked. 

So how could Heineken be skunked unless it's caused by something other than
light?

Hal Davis


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 10:07:57 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: freezing sour mash

I make a sour mash for mixing in my mashes of brews like PU, old ales,
and dry stouts, by infusion mashing at 153F and then letting it cool to
120F and innoculating with a handful of fresh malt and letting it stay
at 120F for 2-3 days. (Zymergy)

I bag it off and freeze it for later uses the brew of the day. Thaw it
out and mix it at mash in.

What happens during freezing?  It seems to make good beer, but do the
enzymes continue to work in the freezer?  Does the protein and dextrine
degrade? Will there be enzyme power after freezing? 

 Would it be better to pastuerize say 40' at 140F prior to freezing, or
would it be best to do a mash out?

As usual, TIA to those that do the heavey lifting of the HBD.

jim booth, lansing, mi


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:36:56 -0600 (CST)
From: George Dietrich <gad at flash.net>
Subject: Priming Rates

I thought that I understood all about priming beer for carbonation.  That is
until I was asked the question about why it takes less priming sugar to
prime corny
kegs , 5 l mini kegs and Party Pigs than you would use for 12 oz bottles.
The more I tried to explain it the more I realized that I don't understand
it very well at all. I was leaning toward beer surface area to volume ratios
but as I said, the more I talked the deeper into a hole I got myself.

Can someone run through the theory for me either via e-mail or in the digest
please? I don't think that this will revive the headspace/carbonation
thread, will it?  Or is that related to what I'm trying to explain.

Way too much copper in my system!! ;^)
George
gad at flash.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 08:02:54 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com>
Subject: 100% Wheat/hop oil/filtering

HBDers -

ALL WHEAT BEERS:
Saul asks a question regarding all-wheat beers.  I (and my brewing partner) 
have made several batches of all-wheat and I can say while shouting THESE 
BEERS ARE FANTASTIC.   There are more than enough enzymes to mash the wheat, 
but I think you may want to get another 1/2# of the rice hulls.  I suggest 
boiling and draining the rice hulls just prior to use -- they are very dusty 
and often have a few rice kernels left in them.  (The only conversion problems 
I ever had with rice hulls was when I did pre-boil them -- I added them to the 
mash and watched the starch reading shoot thorugh the roof as rice kernels 
floated to the surface!)  Prior to doughing-in, line the bottom of your mash 
tun with 1/2 of the hulls.  Use a decoction mash schedule with the grains (a 
single decoction is fine), and simply mix the other half of the rice hull in 
with the mash during the main mash rest.  This proceedure has given me good 
run-offs with acceptable sparge times (but they will be somewhat slower than 
an all-malt batch). 

In my brief attempt to "go pro" (I attempted to open a decoction-style brewery 
in the Washington DC area -- unfortunately investors were looking for the next 
Netscape instead of the next Frederick Brewing Company), my partner and I used 
these all-wheat beers to demonstrate what a decoction process can do for 
flavor (not to mention that in an infusion environment, the mash would likely 
turn to concrete).   People on the verge of plunging into the craft beer scene 
really seem to go for the all-wheat -- its a good "cross-over" beer.

The batches we have made have been in the American Wheat style;  I suggest 
using American Ale for a crisp, dry beer, or American Ale II for a fuller, 
more fruity beer.   Use some good flavor hops (I suggest Sazz) -- up to 1oz 
per 5 gallons in the last 20 minutes or so.  Also, you may want to toast a 
half to one pound of the wheat before mashing (say 10 minutes at 300F). You'll 
lose some enzymes, but there still should be enough left in the remaining 
untoasted wheat to convert the mash.

HOP OIL:
George asks about hop oil.  I recently tried some of this stuff (I got mine 
from Freshops -- standard disclaimer applies).   While I will stand by this 
supplier for whole leaf hops and rhizomes, YOU CAN HAVE WHATS LEFT OF MY 
SUPPLY (about .8 oz).  I tried it in a pale ale.  Thank God I kegged half the 
batch with leaf hops for aroma.  I found the flavor and aroma (but as I recall 
flavor is 80% aroma) to be very pine like.  I used about 2.5 drops per bottle. 
 Maybe I did something wrong (could have pre-boiled it to tone it down? I 
dunno...), but I doubt I will ever try this stuff again.  The beer isn't 
ruined, but I know its there and its hard to taste/smell anything but a 
Christmas tree.....

FILTERING:
Al again suggests that a 0.5 micron filter will strip the beer of flavor.  
While I haven't yet done any extensive testing, I hope to have some anecdotal 
evidence by June.  I can say now that the beers that I have filtered have not 
suffered from any of the problems you descibe, even when compared to beers 
that were unfilted and bottled from the same batch.  Again its too early to 
tell, but my preliminary results are that filtering, even at the 0.5 micron 
rating, does no apparent harm.

But as I posted before, I'm not sure that the benefits outweigh the 
investment.  I mean, I spent over $100 on my filtering settup, it more than 
doubles my packaging time (up to about 4 hrs now, soup to nuts, for a 12 Ga 
batch), and consumes a lot of CO2.  Sure, the beer is clear (as long as you 
remember to chill well before you filter), and there is less sediment to deal 
with.  The only potential benefit to the 0.5 micron may be sability.  This is 
the primary reason, I think, professional brewers use this kind of "sterile" 
filtering.  For homebrewers, perhaps less excess yeast and a sterile filtering 
process will prolong the shelf life of the homebrew, or keep the beer at its 
peak longer.  I have no intention of attempting to measure this since there 
are so many other factors that play into the stability of my homebrew.  I'm 
not shipping it in unfriendly environments or storing it at elevated temps in 
some stockroom, so what's the point?

I expect that I will still continue to filter my beer -- maybe just out of 
sheer guilt that I spent $100 on this thing -- but I will probably switch to a 
5 micron or 1 micron filter.  This way I can get the primary benefits 
(clarity, less sediment) and perhaps speed up the filtering process 
(currently, it takes about an hour to pass 5 gals through my 0.5 micron 
filter).

Chas Peterson

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:58:08 -0000
From: Graham Stone <gstone at dtuk.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Bruheat boilers and stepped mashes

Paul Ferrara writes re. BruHeat and Step Mashing and concludes...

>Bottom Line:
>If you're a fan of step mashing, don't plan on mashing in a BruHeat.

I initially had the same problem with scorching the element (indeed the 
boiler kept cutting out) and I put it down to the fact that the 3mm hole in 
the false bottom supplied with the boiler were too large and letting 
through too much malt debris.  I made my own false bottom out of sheet 
copper drilled with 100s of 2mm hole (boy, what a chore!!!) which improved 
matters but didn't cure the problem.  I only made real progress when I kept 
the tap (I think you would refer to the "spigot"?) open all the time the 
heater element was on.  Incidentally, I only allow the element to stay on 
for about 10s at a time with rests of about 30s between bursts of heat. 
 While the heat is on and the tap in open, you naturally need to run the 
wort into a jug to collect it.  Returning this hot wort to the top of the 
mash was what caused the temperature of the mash to rise rather than the 
heat transferring across the false bottom, IMHO.  I also stirred the mash 
continuously to even the temperature.

This method does work and I find very little if any scorching.  However, it 
is a very manual process (one hand on the thermostat, one on the tap, one 
holding the jug, one stirring and the other holding the thermometer!). 
 Incidentally, the distributor of Bruheat here in the UK acknowledge that 
the internal diameter of the tap is too small but have not been able to 
supply a larger one - this tends to be my biggest problem, the tap gets 
clogged with malt fragments.

Bottom line:  It *can* done but I've opted for recipes which favour single 
step infusions.  Indeed my "Wife Lager" is also a single step process which 
she is very happy with (please, no flames about style, authenticity etc. - 
she likes it, so I don't care to complicate or lengthen the brewing 
procedure any more than necessary <g>).

Graham Stone
Portsmouth, UK


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:20:23 -0000
From: Graham Stone <gstone at dtuk.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Brass beer engines

Chas Peterson writes re. Beer Engine Source in London?

>Does anyone out there know of someone I can contact in the London >area 
that might have a few of these "banned" engines?

This is news to me as an English real ale / bitter drinker.  Almost every 
pub in the UK serves cask conditioned beer and it will almost invariably be 
dispensed with a traditional hand pump which typically glistens with 
brightly polished brass.  It's possible that the old brass barrel taps will 
have been replace with SS but you'd never know this without visiting the 
cellar.  As for the rest of the mechanics of the beer engine, I'd be amazed 
if they weren't all original and hence still made of brass.  Perhaps *new* 
beer engines are SS but the trend here is to keep the appear of all pub 
paraphernalia as olde worlde as possible.  The chances of the breweries 
(who own the vast majority of the pubs) spending money on new equipment 
without a financial interest to do so is highly unlikely.  CAMERA have been 
trying to get legislation about what constitutes "a pint of beer" for years 
without success.  If brass beer engines have been made illegal, you'd never 
know it by visiting a pub and I've heard nothing about this in the news.

Not much help am I <G>!!!



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:40:14 -0500
From: bdebolt at dow.com
Subject: re:  Dropping question, again

This is a repeat question since I didn't get a response.

Jeff Renner - can you provide any input?

Has anyone dropped half of their fermenting wort, left the rest behind
and then compared the two after bottling?

Since I don't use a secondary anymore this would seem like an easy way
to compare a dropped beer to my normal practice.  Rack half the wort out
of the primary at high krausen, then let the two batches finish side by
side.

I realize there are a lot of variables here besides just dropping, but
wanted to check for experience before trying on my own.

TIA,
Bruce DeBolt
Houston, TX
bdebolt at dow.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:40:03 -0600
From: Chad_Bohl at dgii.com (Chad Bohl)
Subject: Hacker Pschorr Recipe

I'm looking for a good Hacker Pschorr Recipe.  Does anyone have one?  Extract 
or all-grain O.K.

Thanks in advance,

chadb

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:10 +0000
From: "Bill Giffin" <billgiffin at maine.com>
Subject: Errors

Good morning all,

>>Al K sent this to me in a private email:
Fix, Noonan, and Miller are all wrong about MgSO4.  I know an awful
lot about brewing and would bet I know more about brewing than Miller,
and I'm about par with Noonan and Fix on *practical* brewing
knowledge. All three of these books are full of errors, *especially*
Noonan and Miller.  I'm putting together a web page *listing* the
errors in their books, page by page.
<<

I just wonder for what purpose.  *LISTING* the errors in their books 
page by page is that going to improve homebrewing?  I don't think so. 
 I have a great deal of respect for Fix, Miller and Noonan, they all 
have improved the quality of homebrewing in the U.S. so that now this 
country has the best homebrewers in the world.  

Perhaps Al needs to list all the errors to be "compleat" (my spell 
checker rejected this word as did some of our UK friends).  Perhaps 
Al has to feel important.  I just wonder if Al knows so much about 
brewing then why isn't he out there doing it instead of criticizing 
those who do?  Isn't George a brewing consultant as well as an 
author?  Haven't both Miller and Noonan started a couple of brew 
pubs?  

Al tell us about how you have set up and run a real brewery.  You 
know one that sells its product to the paying public.

Instead of nitpicking you should praise the effort of those who are 
honestly trying to help improve homebrewing.  Or aren't you a big 
enough person to do that?

Bill

P.S.  If you want to bash me please don't waste any more bandwidth 
and do it in private.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:58 EST
From: Tim.Watkins at analog.com
Subject: Multi Part, all grain

	Many thanks to all who responded to my post about the multi part 
all-grain.
	The general consensus was that it would work no problem, but it was an 
insane amount of work.  For the record, I tried it (2 days, 2 mashes, etc.) 
and combined the two batches in a 6.5 gal plastic primary.  Recipe was an 
IPA  (10 lbs pale malt, 1 lb crystal (60L) 1 oz Perle pellets (7.3%), and 
2oz Cascades cones (?%))
	Did a single step infusion in my kettle.  Mashed in at 153F and did my 
best to maintain it.  Mashed for about 1.5 hours (performed iodine test to 
make sure).  Sparged and collected 3.25 gallons in kettle and boiled.  1/2 
oz perle for 60minutes, 1/2 cascade for 30min, and 1/2 oz cascade steeped 
at end of boil.  The same for both batches.
	Used WYeast 1028, and fermented for 10 days.  (After signs of 
fermentation began, I racked off the trub).  Had a total volume of just 
over 4 gallons.  I didn't take OG, but FG is 1.010.  It's in a keg right 
now, carbonating, but the sample tasted great, nice and hoppy.
	From the initial results, I think I'm going to be an all-grainer from 
now on.

	The thing that most of the responders suggested was for me to but an 
8gallon enamel pot ($30) and to do a full batch.  My question is this:  I 
only have an electric stove in my apartment.  Is it possible to do a full 
wort boil (6.5 gallons) with this setup?  I don't care how long it takes to 
get to a boil, I'm just wondering if the stove will be able to get it to 
boil.
	The other question is this, I've only got a 4 gallon kettle for which 
to mash in, and I've got a 5gal zapap style lauter tun.  How much grain can 
I reasonable expect to mash?  

thanks again to all who responded,

Tim

- -----------------------
Tim Watkins
Applications Engineer
Analog Devices, Inc.
(617) 937-1428
Tim.Watkins at analog.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:50:04 EST
From: Tim.Watkins at analog.com
Subject: Blonde Ale?

On a separate note, has anyone brewed a Blonde Ale?  My SO would like a 
blonde ale for her next batch, and I'm not sure how to go about it?  A 
recipe would be nice, but if no one has one, style guidelines would be the 
next best thing.
	I've checked the Cat's Meow, and couldn't find a recipe, so I figured 
I'd check in here.

Thanks,

Tim



- -----------------------
Tim Watkins
Applications Engineer
Analog Devices, Inc.
(617) 937-1428
Tim.Watkins at analog.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:07:41 -0800
From: Rick Seibt <rseibt at machinedesign.com>
Subject: Downtown Chicago Brewpubs

Hello all,

Travelling to Chicago in early March, and I'm looking to investigate new
brewpubs / beer bars.  We've done Goose Island and House of Beer in the
past, and are looking for something else.  I'll most likely be taking
clients, so I'd prefer places that serve pretty good food. Also would
like to stay in the Downtown area.  

Would any fellow Chicago brewers be kind enough to lend some
suggestions?
Private email is rseibt at machinedesign.com. 

TIA, and I'll buy you a beer if you come to Cleveland for the AHA
Conference.

Rick Seibt
rseibt at machinedesign.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:57:03 -0800
From: "Mercer, David" <dmercer at path-seattle-01.path.org>
Subject: RE: No sparge brew

My thanks to Mike Spinelli who described his no-sparge method in HBD
2345:

>After mashout, recirc'd til clear then drained with ball valve wide open
>while
>gently but quickly pouring pseudo sparge water ontop of grains from a gallon
>pitcher.  Stopped adding when approx. 10 gals. was collected in boil tun. 
>Topped off boil tun with additional 2 gals. of treated water to reach
>pre-boil
volume of 12 gals.

Other than the short note by Dr. Fix in the Brewery library, this is the
only reference I've seen in the HBD or the usual web sites that actually
specifies a no-sparge procedure.   I made a 'no sparge' English pale ale
about a month ago by just draining the mash without adding any
additional water to the grains (those of you with exceptional memories
might remember I posted a question about the effects of failing to
recirculate before draining the runnings). I tasted the first bottle
last night, and it is exceptional. Smooth and malty with a soft
mouthfeel unlike any other beer I've brewed. Even after just two weeks
of conditioning the beer is remarkably clear - almost no chill haze, I
presume because of a reduction in tannins. I'm a definite convert.

Now I'm curious. Is there a 'correct' method for no sparge brewing?
Mike's seems more to me like a 'quick sparge' than a 'no sparge'. But my
intuitively arrived at method of just draining the wort produced less
efficiency than a simple 4/3 adjustment of the grain bill would have
predicted (I bumped a 12# recipe that in my system usually produces a
1.064 wort, up to 16#, but came out 8 points short (i.e. 1.054). Mike's
was more efficient than he expected. How are others out there who have
tried this doing it?

Dave in Seattle

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:43:08 -0500 (EST)
From: energo at fwai.org (Energo Ed)
Subject: Re: Botulism Solved

>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:28:57 -0600
>From: Cuchulain Libby <hogan at connecti.com>
>Subject: Botulism Solved
>
>Greetings All,
>I quote from a syndicated columnist in today's San Antonio Express News.
>
>"British lab scientists cultivated bacteria colonies of the kind most
>associated with food poisoning. Then poured one alcoholic beverage after
>another over samplings of each. To learn most liqours had little effect,
>but wine killed almost all bacteria."
>
>So then, do we mash, sparge, boil, or bottle it in our beer?
>Cuchulain


Botulism is not mostly associated with food poisoning. It's rather rare.
The most likely culprits are Salmonella, Staphlococcus, or E.coli.

Energo Ed



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:19:37 -0700
From: Michael Caprara <mcaprara at awwarf.com>
Subject: New rules on internet access -Reply

     
To arms! To arms!
     
If you choose to respond, the cut-off date is Feb 13th.
     
*******************************************************
     
     
 This will impact us all! Please read on.....
     
 I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter 
 currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has 
 filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your 
 internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the 
 operation of the telephone network.
     
 It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were 
 required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an 
 email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 
 13, 1997. Send your comments to
  isp at fcc.gov
 and tell them what you think.
     
 Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak 
 it in just under the wire for litiagation. Let everyone you know here 
 this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of.
     
           isp at fcc.gov
     
Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all 
our voices may be heard!
     
Please pass this along...
     
     
     



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:03:18 -0800
From: cathy <cathy at aob.org>
Subject: AOB Tax Forms

As you know, Jim Liddil has requested space to post our 1995 IRS tax
return.  As we have explained in the past this is public information
which can be obtained through the IRS office or if you visit our ffices
in Boulder Colorado. 

One reason we ask people to come to our office to review these 
documents is because there can be some confusion in the format presented
(after
all there is 35 pages).  To keep AHA members informed we publish
financial information about the AHA annually in Zymurgy (fall 1996).
 
To help put our tax form contents in perspective, I've attached
additional data which may be helpful.
 
AOB Sources of Revenue 1995
AHA Membership   $518,376       15.53%
IBS Membership   $224,517        6.73%
Other Programs $2,594,874       77.74%
Total          $3,337,767       100%

Revenue by Division
AHA 32% IBS 34% AOB 13% BP 14%  INT'L 7%

Expenses by Division
AHA 32% IBS 22% AOB 30% BP 9%   INT'L 7%

1995 Revenue for the Company as a Whole by Category
AHA Memberships 15%             IBS Memberships  6%
Conferences 17%                 Advertising 17%
BP Books  13%                   New Brewer Subscriptions 2%
Sponsorship 6%                  Other 4%
Merchandise  6% (hats, t-shirts, etc.)
Magazine Sales 6% (resale and back issue sales of The New Brewer & Zym.)
Projects 5% (many IBS items, tours)
Management Fee 3% (the GABF pays a mgmt. fee to the AOB for services)

1995 Total Expenditures for the company as a whole by category
Travel  3%                      Salaries  26%
Conferences 10%                 Printing  12%
Outside Services  5% (photo processors, book indexers, etc.)
Contract Labor  5% (people who do work on contract)
Commission and Royalties  5%
All other  34% (none of these categories is over 3% of total)

Analysis of Association CEO's Annual Salaries

Source:  American Society of Assoc. Executives
Annual Revenue          CEO Compensation        Percent of Rev.
$3,347,055 (avg)        $179,192 (avg)          5.35% (avg)
$3,337,767 (AOB)        $101,284 (AOB)          3.03% (AOB)

We have tried to give you "in a nut shell" what's contained in those 35
pages of very dry tax forms.  Please note that the Great American Beer
Festival is not included because it is run by a separate company.  The
AOB is made up of 36 people who are committed to providing you with the
best in brewing information.
Serving our members, including AHA and IBS, as well as the brewing
communities, is always our primary goal.  Thanks for your continued
support.

Cheers!  Cathy Ewing
- --
Cathy Ewing
Vice President
Association of Brewers            (303) 447-0816 x 120   (voice)
736 Pearl Street                  (303) 447-2825         (fax)
PO Box 1679                       cathy at aob.org          (e-mail)
Boulder, CO  80306-1679           info at aob.org           (aob info)
U.S.A.                            http://beertown.org    (web)

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:10:24 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: skunking

John writes:
>Frequently I have had a clear glass of beer outside in the sun for some time
>with no noticeable (to me) effect on the taste or aroma.  Am I peculiarly
>insensitive to skunkiness or just lucky?  My experience indicates skunking may
>be a sometime thing rather than a sure one.  Besides, almost every beer store
>I go into has their beer stored in well lighted areas.  I know some (Miller,
>for example) use special hop extracts which are supposed to avoid skunking
>but what of the rest?  Has this danger been exaggerated?  Are we scaring
>ourselves to death?

Perhaps you are simply not sensitive to prenyl mercaptan.  Try this:
go to a store that sells single bottles of beer from a cooler lit with
fluorescent lights.  Take two bottles of Heineken or Pilsner Urquell
from the cooler (the closer to the lights the better).  Go over to the
sealed cases of the same beer and swap one of your irradiated bottles
with one that has never seen light.  Buy them, take them home, chill
both for only a few hours (a few days at 50F actually seems to reverse
the reaction) and compare their aromas.

Say... if the store has cases of Heineken or PU cold, you could probably
do the experment for free: challenge the store manager... open two
bottles (dark and skunked) in the manager's office and compare!  I'm
sure every store mgr has seen Bud's "skunky beer" commercials by now.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:09:38 -0600
From: layton at sc45.dseg.ti.com (James R. Layton 972.952.3718 JLAY)
Subject: skunking experiment and starter aeration

The subject of skunked beer comes up in this forum from time to time,
and it seems that some brewers are uncertain about what conditions can
cause the phenomenon. An experiment I performed last summer certainly 
educated me as to one way to skunk beer and just what it tastes/smells
like. I simply placed a bottle of homebrewed pale ale (a clear bottle in
this case) outside on a normal August evening in direct sunshine (temp
around 92F) for a period of 2-3 hours. The bottle was then refrigerated
overnight and sampled alongside a control bottle of the same brew (also
in a clear bottle). The exposed bottle was definitely skunked and very
reminiscent of bottled Heineken, PU, etc. available here. I urge interested
brewers to perform their own experiments in order to satisfy their
curiosity. It only costs one bottle and the result is not undrinkable,
just different. I should try this again in order to determine if heat was
a significant factor or if heat and light work together in a synergistic
manner.

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

Harlan Bauer writes:

> Then when I want to step up, I simply pull a jar off the shelf with
>the appropriate quantity of wort, shake vigorously to aerate, open the lid
>and pour in the yeast. Sterile wort AND sterile aeration.

I won't dispute that Harlan gets good results using this method, but I
doubt that shaking the wort prior to opening the jar really dissolves much 
oxygen. It is my understanding that during the pressure canning process, 
most if not all of the air trapped under the lid of the jar is blown out 
from under the lid along with a good deal of water vapor (steam) from the 
liquid content of the jar. Then, as the jar cools, a partial vacuum is 
formed under the lid as it seals against the mouth of the jar. The gas 
remaining in the jar's headspace is mostly water vapor, thus pressure 
inside the jar is the vapor pressure of water while pressure outside the 
jar is ambient air pressure. This is the "vacuum" seal we rely on to hold 
the lid in place. The same principle applies to boiling water bath canning. 
I suspect that Harlan's yeast get their oxygen from air allowed into the
container after the lid is removed.

Jim Layton, homebrewer and canner
Howe, TX
layton at sc45.dseg.ti.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:40:23 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: sterile aeration

Harlan writes:
>A good idea I read in Pierre Rajotte's book *First Steps in Yeast Culturing*
>is to reuse juice and baby-food jars. The advantage of using them is that
>they can be filled part way, sterilized, and the air as well as the wort is
>sterile. Then when I want to step up, I simply pull a jar off the shelf with
>the appropriate quantity of wort, shake vigorously to aerate, open the lid
>and pour in the yeast. Sterile wort AND sterile aeration.

I don't think that's right.  I believe that the headspace in the jars
would contain sterile water vapor, not sterile air.  Right?


Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:48:49 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: trub-free starters

Harlan also writes (shoot):
>First, I always pressure cook the wort twice, once in a mason jar for bulk
>storage and to drop ALL the sediment; and then I decant into the various
>sized recipients enumerated above and pressure cook again. The advantage of
>this method (also described in Rajotte) is absolutely trub-free starters.

Absolutely trub-free starters (in my opinion) are not the best thing.
Trub contains many yeast nutrients so that leaving some trub in the
wort (and certainly in the starter wort) is believed to be beneficial
to the yeast.  It's clear that too much trub in the main wort can lead
to haze and (possibly) increased higher (fusel) alcohol production,
but personally, I believe that these would be negligible in a starter
and the sterols from the trub would only help.  Comments?


Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:08:12 -0500
From: Mark Pfortmiller <MPFORTMILLER at PRINTPACK.COM>
Subject:  

Im looking for information on growing Hops. Were do i buy the rizones
(sic) to plant. Private e-mail cool


       TIA  


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:36:38 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com>
Subject: canning wort

A couple HBD's back, Louis Gordon asked:

>I have pressure canned my wort in the 
>past. The problem is that (I assume since I cannot see it) the wort foams 
>up in the mason jars and most of it winds up in the canning pot. Does 
>this leave us with only making the wort when ready to use or is there a 
>way to can without foaming.

The only time I ever had wort foam out of my jars was when I didn't let the
canner cool down long enough before releasing the pressure.

During pressure canning, the wort isn't directly heated, but is instead
indirectly heated by steam. The steam is at the boiling point of water
under the applied pressure.  Since at any given pressure wort boils at a
higher temperature than water, I don't expect that the wort boils at all
during the heating phase.  

The problem comes in when you release the pressure.  The wort is
superheated with respect to atmospheric pressure, so that if you suddenly
drop the pressure, it'll immediately boil violently, causing your observed
foaming.

To safely release the pressure, you want to let the canner cool down until
the wort samples are below their boiling point at atmospheric pressure,
THEN release the pressure while they're still hot enough to vacuum seal
when you tighten the caps.   

If you have instructions that came with the canner, look in the fine print
to see if they have a suggested cooling time before opening, otherwise just
experiment.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:49:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Botulism

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

Scott Murman keeps talking about vacuums...

Scott: A mild correction. C. Botulinum is an anaerobe. This simply means 
it functions in an environment free of oxygen. Though vacuums are 
generally free of oxygen (since they're pretty much free of air at 
completion), so is a CO2 purged cornie, for example. The point being 
that you can be free of oxygen without being free of air (vacuum). 

Whether a refrigerated bottle of wort creates a partial vacuum has little 
bearing on the oxygenation of the content.

See ya!

Pat Babcock                 | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for
President, Brew-Master      |  therapy..." -PGB
and Chief Taste-Tester      | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery |  at the end of your day as every sentence
pbabcock at oeonline.com       |  requires proper punctuation." -PGB
Webmaster of the Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
                 Home of the Home Brew Flea Market


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:31:51 +0000
From: Darrin Pertschi <darrinp at cowles.com>
Subject: Sorry

Sorry
- -- 
Darrin in Central PA
Proprietor--Simpleton's Cosmic Brewery

- ---------------------------------------------
You never know just how you look through other peoples eyes. <B.H.S.>

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:32:02 +0000
From: Darrin Pertschi <darrinp at cowles.com>
Subject: Sorry

Sorry
- -- 
Darrin in Central PA
Proprietor--Simpleton's Cosmic Brewery

- ---------------------------------------------
You never know just how you look through other peoples eyes. <B.H.S.>

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:43:55 +0000
From: Chris White <whitelab at fia.net>
Subject: Re: White Labs Yeast Test Results (Chris White)

Sorry for the length of this post, but I feel there are a lot of 
issues which need to be discussed. 

I would like to respond to questions in HBD 2342 regarding White Lab's 
cell count, but first I would like to give you some back-ground on our 
company.  White Labs began selling homebrew yeast cultures in San 
Diego, CA in the middle of 1993.  In May of 1996, we began to expand 
production and distribution into other states.  Before we expanded our 
production, White Labs sold approximately 9,000 vials in the San Diego 
area.  Most of these sales were repeat customers who came back for the 
high quality and consistency of our product.  Many of our customers 
are advanced homebrewers who understand the need for short lag times.  

White Labs began with the intention to offer a higher cell count, per 
package, product than any other liquid yeast supplier.  As 
homebrewers, we wanted to produce yeast cultures that had pitchable 
quantities of yeast for 5 gallons.  This took a while to perfect and 
figure out.  Ultimately, our goal was to put the yeast from a pint 
size starter culture into a 50ml tube.  We have been able to 
accomplish this successfully.  The average lag time for 5 gallons for 
the different strains is about 8 to 12 hours.  This lag time cannot be 
obtained with under pitching as generally witnessed by other products 
used without starters.  The reason we have such a following in the 
stores which carry our product is due to the fact that our yeast 
cultures are very high quality and they actually produce short lag 
times.

Our cell counts, per vial, have always been consistent with those of a 
pint size starter.  In addition, our cell counts are at least 10 times 
higher than a fully swelled smack-pack.  White Labs primary intentions 
have always been to supply homebrewers and commercial brewers with the 
highest quality yeasts.

Initially when we prepared the #'s for literature on our product, we 
used a  spectrophotometer to measure cell concentrations.  This is a 
very common laboratory procedure when counting yeast and bacteria, and 
we routinely use the spec. for our analytical tests.  But when using a 
spec. to measure cell concentrations, you must first calibrate the 
spectrophotometer with readings from cell counts done under a 
microscope.  We initially did this with an English yeast we were 
producing.  (Not the same English yeast Mr. Liddil tested, but just 
about as flocculant)  We didn't change the calibration with the other 
strains because I felt (from prior experience with other yeasts) that 
the #'s would be close, maybe 2-3 fold, but certainly not 10 fold.  We 
also had other labs report cell numbers to us that matched ours.  So I 
felt pretty confident to put that number on our literature, solely as 
an informational piece.  We have not included the numbers on our 
products themselves.  

We did some extensive cell counts over the last two days, and have 
found by counting cells that we have between 40 to 75 billion cells 
per vial.  But our product has never changed, unfortunately our cell 
count #'s were incorrect.  There was certainly no deceit intended.  We 
sincerely believed that the literature reflected our yeast counts.  
Our customers routinely experience lag times of 8-12 hours in their 5 
gallon batchs without propagating our product.  Some may feel that 
8-12 hour lag times are inadequate.  Starters can always be made from 
our products, if more than a pint size starter is desired.  We have 
spent more time with quality control procedures such as cell viability 
(98 to 99% when we bottle) and differential plating.  And we count 
every batch (with the spectrophotometer) before pouring out, it's just 
our base numbers were off, and have always been off by the same 
margin.  As I've said, the concentration of cells in our vials has 
always been comparable to a pint starter.  So we'll remove the talk of 
cell numbers from our literature, which frankly only a few people have 
looked at anyway.  We will concentrate more on just a general 
comparison to a typical pint starter.  I'm thankful for people to 
point this out now because I don't what any erroneous information out 
there on our products (especially since we're preparing new 
literature!), but I have full confidence in our products that they do 
what they say they will do.  That is, start a 5 gallon batch of beer 
with a lag time corresponding to a pint starter.

We're always interested in what our customers have to say about our 
product, and sometimes you learn from your mistakes.  Also, we have 
begun to place a bottling date on our vials, ensuring our customers of 
the freshness of our yeast.  If there are any more questions, feel 
free to direct them my way.  I will try and respond quickly, but 
please be patient because we are in the middle of moving our 
operations to a larger facility in the Miramar area of San Diego.  
Thank you for your time,


Chris White

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:51:46 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Botulism (NO, NOT THAT!)

Check out http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap2.html.

Return to table of contents