---

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


Contents:
  Hypochlorous acid ("David R. Burley")
  Merry Christmas... (Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi)
  Falstaff Tapper (Jack Schmidling)
  Question about Dry vs. Liquid Yeast ("Eric Bonney")
  Extraction Efficiency & Tables (Steve Alexander)
  Thermometer in cooler side (LaBorde, Ronald)
  blow off brushes ("Bob Spiers")
  Filling,Stuck,NA/LA BS ("David R. Burley")
  BruHeat Gasket (Douglas Flagg)
  glass carboy carrier (Mark Tumarkin)
  xingu (DOUGWEISER)
  brewing challenge (Heiner Lieth)
  Re: Racking ("Brendan Persinger")
  Pils, pilsner, pilsener (Torbjorn Bull-Njaa)
  Racking Problems (Richard S. Kuzara)
  Guinness Clone?? ("Jonathan G. Ingram")
  Nitrogen and Sportwear (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: Using Malto-Dextrin/Lactose (Rob Miller)
  Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner ("Bruce Gill")
  hop tea, grain tea, (?) tea (dan salai)


Happy Holidays!

  - The HBD Janitors and Steering Committee

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com

Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org

Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:

  Anonymous ftp from...
	ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
        ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


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


Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:55:47 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Hypochlorous acid

Brewsters:

As soon as I pushed the button to send my previous comments
on their way, visions of the CRC Handbook danced in my head and
I looked up the dissociation constant of hypochlorous acid.
There it was, at 2.95x 10^ -8. Yep pretty weak acid. Which means in
an acid solution ( like chlorine/water mixtures) HOCl  will be the
predominant species. But how about in a caustic solution such
as bleach?

Using freshman chemistry we can get an idea of the concentration
of the HOCl species in bleach.

If we assume the NaOH concentration is 0.5% as previously stated,
then the OH ion concentration is 5g/l or 5/40 is 1,25 X 10^ -1M in OH
ion.  We know the dissociation constant of water as 1 x 10^ -14, so
the hydrogen ion concentration of bleach is   8 X 10 ^ -14.  We know
that NaOCl in bleach is 5.25%(52.5 g/l) from the label on the bottle
so the OCl ion concentration is calculated as 0.7M =


Now we can calculate the HOCl species concentration as
[ HOCl ] equals (8X10 x^-14)*(7X10 ^ -1)/2.95 x 10-8
or [HOCl]  is  1.898 X 10^ -6 M. =

This is 9.79 X 10^ -4 g/l or

<<about 1 ppm in HOCl in bleach from the bottle>>.

If we do this same calculation for a chlorine solution which
contains HCl as a result of the reaction of the chlorine with
water to form HOCl and HCl, then such a solution which
contains the equivalent concentration of hypochlorite (0.7 M) as
bleach ( and therefore an HCl content of 0.7M) would have a
hypochlorous acid content of virtually 0.7M or a conc. of 25 g/liter
or 25,000 ppm HOCl.

Obviously, there is a huge difference between 1 ppm of HOCl in
household bleach and a chlorine solution of the same stoichiometric
makeup of chlorine at 25,000 ppm. =


Diluting bleach reduces the concentration of HOCl  even more or
does it, since the hydroxide in conc is lower?

At the more dilute concentration, the hydroxide ion is say 0.007M
(therefore the hydrogen ion concentration is 1.42 X 10 ^ -12)  and
the OCl concentration is likewise 0.007M.   Therefore,

Now we can calculate the HOCl species concentration as
[ HOCl ] equals (8X10 x^-12)*(7X10 ^ -3)/2.95 x 10-8
or [HOCl]  is  1.898 X 10^ -6 M. =


This is 9.79 X 10^ -4 g/l   and is the same concentration.

Conclusion: The sometimes stated proposition that dilute bleach =

is better than the concentrated stuff does not appear to be borne =

out in the case of HOCl as the active species.

Since this tremendous disparity exists in the concentration of HOCl
between bleach and chlorine solutions and we know that bleach is
an effective disinfectant , it is unlikely that HOCl is the
microbioloically
active species in alkaline solutions like bleach/water mixtures.

If this is the case, then the argument that dissociation of HOCl =

reduces its concentration and the conclusion that higher
temperatures produces a poorer disinfectant solution is
questionable. =


If another species in bleach is active (I suspect it is OCl) then it is
likely that the rate of disinfection is higher at a higher temperature
and a higher concentration in line with most chemical reactions
showing an increase in rate with increasing temperature and
increasing concentration.

Any clue as to the active species in alkaline solutions?

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:19:32 -0800
From: Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi <rosamax at split.it>
Subject: Merry Christmas...

 ...and Hoppy New Year!
Sorry for the obvious joke, but I always wanted to send this kind of
wishes, where else could I do it?

Thanks to Jeff and the others who emailed me.
Thanks to all the people who helped me to find the best beer during my
short stay in US in September (I'll post my view about US beers sooner
or later).
Cheers to all the San Diego homebrewers I could met there at the QUAFF
meeting (Dion, Tom, Randall, don't know all the names... if any of you
is reading HBD, please extend my best wishes to all the others).
And again, best wishes to all the HBDers in the world!

Massimo Faraggi - Genova - Italy
(Many, many miles East of all the US Celebration Ales you don't want to
export to Europe :^(...)
- -----------------------------------
http://www.split.it/users/rosamax/    Max Beer Page (now with some Xmas
labels also)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:59:10 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Falstaff Tapper

From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net>
Subject: Falstaff Tapper

"Anyway, does anybody know if this thing has any value to a
homebrewer?

I converted a bunch of these in another life but with the
advent of Corney kegs and stainless, I recycled them as 
scrap.  What goes around comes around as they say.

It's a lot of work to make them work and I do not think worth 
the trouble these days.

The CO2 is in a cylinder that is inside, attached to the lid
which is released with a C'ring.  Don't know where to get the
odd sized cylinder so I just removed it.  I drilled and tapped
 a hole in the top for a fitting for CO2.

They fit nicely into a fridge but without CO2, it doesn't do
much good.

Have fun,

js




Visit our WEB pages: 
                        Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp
                        Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf
             ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:38:41 -0500
From: "Eric Bonney" <ebonney at fuse.net>
Subject: Question about Dry vs. Liquid Yeast

    Sorry if this thread has been here before, but I has some questions =
about dry and liquid yeast.  First what is the difference, if any in =
taste of the beer?  What are the differences in brewing with dry yeast =
vs. liquid?  As in the actual steps to use, is one harder / easier than =
the other.  I have read some posts both here and in the =
rec.crafts.brewing newsgroup, of rehydrating <sp> yeast, what is this =
all about?

    Thanks for the help.

 -Eric Bonney
ebonney at fuse.net
Check out my home page at:
http://home.fuse.net/ebonney/
Prejudice is a learned trait, SO WHAT are YOU teaching YOUR children?!



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:38:28 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Extraction Efficiency & Tables

Since comparison of extract efficiency with extraction
tables in HB books and magazines, is so popular, I've
decided to propose a suggested 'standard' for deriving this
figure from dry basis coarse gring % (DBCG%) or Hot Water
Extract (HWE) figures and moisture content (MC%).

Given:
  Moisture Content = MC, expressed as a percentage.
  Analytic Extract = DBCG, expressed as a percentage.
  Constant 46.15 pt-gal/lb, as per sucrose at 20C(68)
    or 385.14 degree-L/kg.
Note the conversion constants to metric units:
  1 pt-gal/lb = 8.3454 degree-L/kg

Define the practical extraction potential (PEP) of a
malt as:
   PEP (point-gallons/pound) =
    46.15 * (DBCG/100) * (1.0 - (MC/100))
or in metric
   PEP (L-degree/kg) =
    385.14 * (DEG/100) * (1.0 - (MC/100))

Example:
    MC = 2.5%
    DBCG = 79.5%

    PEP = 46.15 * (.795) * (1-.025)
    PEP = 35.77 pt-gal/lb
    PEP = 298.5 L-deg/kg

- --
Proposed Methods of calculation:
In order to derive figures from malt data sheets I
propose the following methods:

1/ If a range of values for MC% or DBCG% of HWE is given,
   the arithmetic average of the range will be used.
   e.g. MC% is 2.5% to 3.5%, use MC = 3.0%

2/ If a lower or upper bound is listed for MC%, the bound
   value will be used for calculations of PEP.

3/ If a lower or upper bound is gtiven for DBCG%, the bound
   will be carried through the calculation using the
   less-than '<' or 'greater-than' '>' symbols.

4/ If DBCG% is not available, but hot water extract (HWE)
   is, then a conversion from HWE to estimated DBCG% is
   as follows:
     DBCG% (est) = 100 * HWE (L-degree/kg) / 385.14
     e.g.
     HWE = 308 L-deg/kg,
     DBCG% = 100 * 308 / 385.14 = 79.97% (as DBCG%)
   Since HWE is derived from an essentially different mash
   methodology than DBCG%, all PEP figures derived from HWE
   rather than DBCG% must be so noted.
- --

Table:
In the following table I have calculated PEP figures for
all of the malts and grains given in the Brewing Techniques
1997 Market Guide ((800.427.2993,~$10US) which have
sufficient detail to permit calculation.  Figures derived
from HWE are noted with an asterisk.

I'd like to extend this table to include comparable data
on additional malts, and would greatly appreciate assistance
in the form of email (steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net)
including information, preferably from "TYPICAL" malt data
sheets including:
    Maltster name, Malt Name/type, Moisture percentage,
      and either
    Dry Basis Coarse Grind extract percentage (DBCG%):
      or
    Hot Water Extract (HWE%):
and any other identification information.

Table:
In order to be comparable to other published tables, figures
for PEP are expressed as SG equivalents for one lb/gal
extraction. (1.00000 + ((PEP in pt-gal/lb) / 1000)).

- -- Base Malt --
Bioriginal Organic Malt       1.0340
Brewing Products Scotmalt1    1.0363
Brewing Products Scotmalt2    1.0354
Brewing Products Scotmalt3    1.0352
Breiss Organics 6-row         1.0341
Breiss Organics 2-row         1.0345
Breiss 6-row                  1.0341
Breiss 2-row                  1.0354
Breiss Winter 6-row           1.0341
Breiss Winter 2-row           1.0350
Schreier 6-row                1.0341
Schreier 2-row                1.0350

- --Lager/Pils --
Beeston Chariot Pilsner       1.0353
Crisp Finest Pilsner Lager    1.0353
Durst Pils                    1.0347
De Wolf Pilsen                1.0348
Muntons Lager                >1.0343*

- -- Mild --
Muntons Mild Ale             >1.0343*

- -- Munich --
Breiss Munich 10L             1.0336
Breiss Munich 20L             1.0333
Breiss Organics Munich 10L    1.0336
Durst Munich                  1.0342
DeWolf Aromatic               1.0344
DeWolf Munich                 1.0344
Gambrinus Munich 90           1.0348
Gambrinus Munich 100          1.0348

- -- Pale --
ADM 6-row Pale Lager         >1.0339
ADM 2-row Pale LAger         >1.0346
Beeston Best Halcyon          1.0363
Beeston Best Maris Otter      1.0363
Beeston Best Pipkin           1.0366
Beeston Golden Promise        1.0358*
Breisss Pale Ale              1.0358
Crisp Eng Pale Ale            1.0365
Crisp Maris Otter             1.0365
DeWolf Pale Ale               1.0344
Gambrinus ESB Pale            1.0354
Gambrinus Pale                1.0354
MFB Pale Ale                  1.0352
Muntons Pale                 >1.0352*
Schreier Special Pale         1.0356

- -- Vienna --
Breiss Vienna                 1.0337
Durst Vienna                  1.0339

- -- Other Base --
Gambrinus Honey               1.0348

- -- Caramel --
Beeston Caramalt              1.0309
Beeston Crystal               1.0319
Beeston Dark Crystal          1.0323
Beeston Pale Crystal          1.0311
Durst 40ebc                   1.0302
Durst 120ebc                  1.0319
Durst 200ebc                  1.0296
Muntons Crystal              >1.0315*
Weyermann Carahell            1.0330

- -- Roasted/Toasted Malts --
Beeston Amber                 1.0334
Beeston Black                 1.0315
Beeston Brown                 1.0343
Beeston Chocolate             1.0313
Beeston Roasted Barley        1.0310
DeWolf Biscuit                1.0339

- -- Wheat Malts --
Beeston Wheat                 1.0349
Brewing Products Scotmalt4    1.0351
Breiss Wheat                  1.0354
Durst Wheat                   1.0355
DeWolf Wheat                  1.0357
Gambrinus Wheat               1.0361
Muntons Wheat                >1.0358*
Schreier Wheat                1.0357

- -- end --

Steve Alexander







Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 17:29:17 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Thermometer in cooler side

I use an Igloo 10 gallon round cooler for my mash tun and would like to
mount a dial thermometer into the side.
Has anyone any advise on how to do this?

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 18:28:46 PST
From: "Bob Spiers" <gotcha500 at hotmail.com>
Subject: blow off brushes

>The closed ( carboy and hose attached to lead the foam away)
>fermenter's main appeal to homebrewers is that, at first glance, it
>appears to be more resistant to infection from outside sources.
>The first few times you use it, all may go well and that is the real
>danger of this method. Infection is insidious.  It is my opinion and
>others agree (and others differ) that, unfortunately, this overflow
>tube is difficult ( nearly impossible IMHO) to clean of this gunk and
>represents a potential harbor for unwanted microorganisms.


Personally I ferment both ways, blowoff and non-blowoff, depending on 
what carboy is available(6.5 or 5).  If you are to do a fruit beer 
however, or get the liquid anywhere near the top of the carboy, you will 
have to blow off.  Attest that knowledge to a batch of apricot mead in a 
6.5 gallon carboy that clogged the airlock and then blew the bottom out 
of my carboy...you ever come home to see beer or mead oozing out from 
under the bedroom door.  Not good. You will be thinking blowoff pretty 
quick. I know the stopper should blow off first, but it obviously didn't 
and was still very much intact laying on the floor :)

I mentioned this a few months ago, but the thread on cleaning these 
hoses or not using blow off has continued.  After this incident I 
searched everywhere for long hoses to clean blow off tubing, because I 
absolutely could not have this happen again.(see divorce attorney)  
I found them online at Beer, Beer & More Beer.  3/8", 1/2" and 1" 
diameter brushes in 4' lengths.   The website is http://www.morebeer.com
The main reason I never used blowoff tubings before was because of the 
difficulty I had cleaning them.  Now I dont hesitate to use blowoffs, 
because cleaning the lines is a breeze and does not involve any 
chemicals that eat the top layer of skin off my hands.
     So what am I missing?  Everyone keeps talking about infections in 
tubing and how hard it is too clean and then whether or not the 
infection matters.  Why not clean them with a brush like we do 
everything else and not worry about it?


Just my 2 cents,

Bob Spiers

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:10:36 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Filling,Stuck,NA/LA BS

Brewsters:

AlK says:

>I don't understand the science behind it, but I've proven to myself
>many times (most recently this weekend) that underfilled bottles
 carbonate
>no differently than "normally" filled bottles.  Overfilled bottles,
>however, carbonate *much* slower and may actually end up less
 carbonated
>no matter how long you wait.

Perhaps it is the lack of oxygen in the headspace which is not
permitting the few yeast in the beer to re-grow. The yeast
need to grow in this alcoholic, lower ( than the wort) nutrient beer
and may need oxygen to do it.

Have you or anyone else tried pitching an active bottling starter
as I do when bottling? Which is maybe the reason I don't see this
effect. Although I've never tried an actual experiment ( a double blind
and deaf experiment as I recall {8^) ) like Al, I cannot say I recall
such a difference.

How about actually measuring the CO2 content of sample bottles?
Can anyone do this?
- ------------------------------------------
John Varady has four batches which have apparently stuck,
at least based on his hydrometer readings.

The operative word is "apparently"

First make sure that the carboys do or do not have fermentable =

sugars by checking with Clinitest.  If they have more than 1/4%
by Clinitest then they are stuck, if not then you probably have =

a mashing temperature problem in which your thermometer is
reading too low and you are making an excessive amount of
dextrins by mashin at too high a temperature or other similar
process problem.

If they are less than 1/4% by Clinitest, then you can bottle these
with a *reasonable* assurance that you will not get bottle bombs.
I have never had such a problem when using Clinitest.
- ----------------------------------------------
Jack Schmidling says about his low alcohol beer process on
his web page:

>There is an Applicaton Note on my web page on a process I worked
>out along with lab analysis of the beer after processing.  The bottom
>line is you can not get rid of all the alcohol without additional
>steps but you can get rid of enough that it will not turn on
>an alcoholic person.

I'd like to see this "proof". This sounds really dangerous to me
and I believe you are wide open for a lawsuit.  Please send me
the analysis methods and results privately, especially the part where
you establish the level of alcohol which will not affect a recovering
alcoholic.  Until then, I will maintain my position that this is likely
to cause real pain to someone who is a recovering alcoholic
out there who believes this.

Take this note off your page. PLEASE!!!
- ------------------------------------------------

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:31:30 -0500
From: Douglas Flagg <dflagg at agate.net>
Subject: BruHeat Gasket

I use my BruHeat Boiler to boil my wort.  Unfortunately, the
gasket sealing the heating element to the bucket has gone
south!  And I feel the urge to brew once again...

Does anyone have a source of supply for these gaskets?  I have
tried Home Depot/Home Quarters and my local hardware store (not
many left...see Home Depot/Home Quarters) with no luck.  I have
also left an e-mail with the supplier (I think) with no reply
to date.

Doug
Orono, ME

dflagg at agate.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:47:04 -0500
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at mindspring.com>
Subject: glass carboy carrier

Hoppy Holidays to All,

I just wanted to interject something into the carboy vs plastic fermenter
discussion. Not so much as to which is better (although I use glass carboys
generally), but to address the peripheral issue of danger from glass carboy
breakage that has been mentioned by several people, such as Kirk Harralson
who writes:

>The biggest drawback to glass, in my opinion, is the possibility of dropping 
>a full carboy.  I've been very lucky so far, but every time I carry a
carboy >down the steps to my basement, I get a little paranoid.  As
creative as some >of the people on this list are, I'm sure someone will
find a better way.
     
I don't know if my solution is terribly creative but it certainly works. I
use plastic milk crates as cradles, you know - the kind you see in stacks
at the back of the grocery store. But please, don't "borrow" these. You can
pick them up for a couple of bucks at many discount dept  stores. They make
moving carboys safely a breeze as they give you two handles to making
lifting easier, and they also protect the glass from bumps and bangs in
moving or setting down. 

I have always distrusted the carboy handles that go around the neck of the
carboy. It seems to me that lifting a full and heavy carboy puts a lot of
stress on the glass. It may be up to it until it gets shocked or stressed
by a slight tap against something in transport or setting it down on a
concrete floor - with possibly scary results. The milk crates are light,
strong, and cheap. They are also great for storing 16 oz bottles (22 oz fit
too, but are taller so you can't stack the crates). Any way, they work
great for me, YMMV.

Mark Tumarkin
The Brewery in the Jungle
Gainesville, FL

PS - the X-mas poem Rob Moline posted was great. Santa was good to me as
well - I found bottles of Chimay and New Glarus Belgian Red nestled under
the tree. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:26:42 EST
From: DOUGWEISER <DOUGWEISER at aol.com>
Subject: xingu

Hey All!
   I'm looking for some style and brewing info on Xingu black beer from
Brazil. To me it tastes more or less like a lager version of a sweet stout
like Mackeson's on draft (not the bottled stuff). But Michael Jackson refers
to it as a Kulmbacher-style lager, which I take to mean like a Schwarzbier.
Not even close in my opinion.  Someone on the web even calls it a smokey
Rauchbier style brew. Again, not even close in my opinion.  Neither of these
styles would include roast barley, which is definitely a part of the Xingu
recipe. What do you all think?
    Can anyone offer any help in formulating a recipe for this fine brew? The
closest I've come so far has been with a sweet stout recipe, but the
roastyness has been too sharp. Roast seems to be the appropriate grain to use,
but needs to be softer than in a stout. A malty lager strain would help a
little. Would calcium carbonate help to further soften the sharpness of the
roast?
TIA, Doug in Winnetka, CA

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:44:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org>
Subject: brewing challenge

I have nothing to say about business practices of big companies; this post
is about the beer they brew:

Quite frankly I think it is pointless to insult the big boys' product (A-B,
etc) or the consumers of their product (as is routinely done in this forum).
Virtually all consumers going into a store to buy beer have a choice as to
what they want to buy and they buy the best that they can for the money they
have to spend.  It is an insult to them to say that they don't know what
they are doing. The big beer companies have been at this a long time and
have tried many recipes over time.  They have settled on something that
works in the market.

If you want to brew a beer that is the best beer for the most number of
persons, then you would probably not brew the stuff we brew as homebrewers
because it has the wrong price/value ratio for most consumers.  The same is
even true for me as a homebrewer (and probably many others here): I don't
spend $6 on a six-pack of the good stuff (because I can, and do, brew it
myself for a quarter of that price), but I _would_ go and buy a six pack of
Bud, Miller or Coors because I have guests who prefer that over most the
heavier beers that I brew.

I did recently try to brew a batch that would be pleasing to such guests.
That batch came out OK, but it could have been a lot better. So, that got me
thinking:

It would really be interesting if we had a discussion as to how to brew a
beer that could compete in the marketplace with that of the big boys. It
seems to me that the key characteristics would be: (1) fairly low alcohol
content (2.5-3.5%, I guess), (2) low to moderate hop flavor, (3) only slight
bitterness, (4) light yellow color, (5) just a hint of maltiness, and (6)
low cost.

OK so here is THE CHALLENGE: 

Let's see some recipes that will accomplish this and have a better
price/value ratio to for millions of consumers than any of the stuff the big
boys brew!  The rule I'm making for this challenge is for the cost to be
lower than $10 per 5-gallon batch. 

Tell us how you brewed it (including gravities), how much it cost (per 5
gallons or 19 liters), and how it tasted. Please don't post recipes that
have not been tried unless you are sure that they will compete.  If you have
an aversion to this sort of beer, then just consider this an academic
exercise.  It would be nice to have some discussion on the posted recipes.

Fine Print: I know that different places have differences in the cost of
ingredients and/or beer, so if you don't like the $10-number, then for the
sake of this challenge, find the best price that you can for 48 12-oz cans
or bottles of Bud, Miller, or Coors and use 40% of that. For me that is
$9.58 (40% of $23.96) per today's grocery store ads in the newspaper. Don't
include the cost of deposits, bottles or kegs in any of your numbers; or if
you feel that you must, then make sure you use an acceptable amortization
schedule (but please don't tell us about it).

Let's not argue about the $10-number in this challenge.  I know that it is a
key element in the argument, and we all know that it's probably much higher
per 5 gallons than what it costs A-B to brew a batch.  For us all to get the
most out of this excercise, we need a set of base-line constraints, and
since I'm making the rules, I get to pick the number.  

It would be moderately interesting to know what it actually does cost the
big boys to brew.  But then you would have to figure in all those other
costs (you know: the lawyers, the marketing folks, big factories, ad
campaigns,..., dividends to their stock holders (which, by the way, may
include you and me via our mutual funds),  etc...  Actually, I just lost
interest in that part of the subject... I'd rather read about making beer.

Remember: the object of this exercise is not to brew the stuff you
personally like best, but the stuff that millions of others would find to
have the best price/value ratio.

Heiner Lieth



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:55:00 -0800
From: "Brendan Persinger" <kapital at exo.com>
Subject: Re: Racking

Drew Buscareno writes:
>>> I have tried Phil's siphon starter
and another brand without much luck.  The homebrew store I order from
just recommended starting the siphon with my mouth which is counter to
everything I have read.
Is there a fool proof way to rack beer from one carboy to the next and
what would the equipment cost?  Is there some sort of siphon starter
pump that has been developed for this very purpose?<<<

I have a "KAF Safety Siphon", which is similar to Phil's siphon starter,
only it's made of metal and already attached to a length of tubing (there's
a little plastic bit at the end of the tubing, so you can attach more if
needed).  It works great!  I've never had any problem starting a siphon
with it.

Try checking your local outdoor/survivalist stores for this or something
similar (I bought mine from a booth at a gun/military/outdoor show).

Hope this helps!

 -Brendan Persinger
Tustin, CA
kapital at exo.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:12:23 +0100
From: Torbjorn Bull-Njaa <bull-njaa at interpost.no>
Subject: Pils, pilsner, pilsener 

I agree with Brad Macmahon that the difference (in German language) 
regarding Pils and Pilsner is where the beer comes from. The distinction 
is interesting - but not related to Nathan's question!

Roger Protz mentions in his book Classic Bottled Beers of the World that 
there once was a German court order ruling that German brewers must add 
the suffix "-er" to differentiate between pilsner (from Pilsen) and 
pilsener (pilsner-type).

Nathan's question however, was regarding the difference between pils and 
pilsener, not pilsner. The spelling is the point. And then the answer 
must be that generically, there is no difference. Not in German.

As far as I am informed, the terms Pilsener and the abbreviated version 
Pils, now exist side by side in German language. And on beer labels, 
meaning exactly the same. Whether the spelling "Pilsner" is used in 
German language today, I do not know, but as far as I know, it is not.

I should however, very much appreciate also to have a "real" German with 
some etymological knowledge comment on this?

In Norway, and I believe also in the other Scandinavian languages, the 
terms pils/pilsner/pilsener all exist side by side and are used without 
the slightest differentiation. This seems to me, also to be the case in 
several other languages. 

Skaal and god jul!
Torbjorn

e-mail bull-njaa at interpost.no

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 19:23:19 -0700
From: rkuzara at wyoming.com (Richard S. Kuzara)
Subject: Racking Problems

"Drew Buscareno  writes - I...  I have had some problems with racking from
primary to secondary and from
secondary to my bottling bucket, especially since my brewing partner
moved away...Is there a fool proof way to rack beer from one carboy to the
next and
what would the equipment cost...

I wanted a siphon method that would work for both racking and for siphoning
from my bottling "carboy" (I don't use a bottling bucket) to the bottling
wand and I ended up using the "T" method with a couple of plastic valves. 
Basically, the long siphon tube is connected to the left branch of the top
of the "T" tube fitting with the right branch of the top of the T going to
a
short tube then a valve and then on to another short tube which can be
connected to the bottle filler or can go to the target carboy.  The bottom
leg of
the T similarly goes to a short tube and to a valve (and then to a short
tube if desired).  To start the siphon, I close the right top valve, open
the leg valve, suck to fill the siphon, close the leg valve, and open the
right valve. The only drawback is the potential of infection if the
tube-T-valve setup is not appropriately cleaned (mine tends to get a bit
discolored where
the tube and the T or valves connect and I occasionally clean it - however,
I use it to siphon bleach solution from my carboys and this is somewhat
cleans it).  However, I've had no problem even
thought there is a bit of discoloration at some of the junctions.  I do
suspect that this should be dissembled and soaked in bleach solution (or
boiled) either periodically
or every time used.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:50:11 -0500
From: "Jonathan G. Ingram" <jgi105 at psu.edu>
Subject: Guinness Clone??

Does anyone have a stout recipe that they would be willing to share with me
that would produce a guiness like stout? A liquid extract recipe would be
prefered. Thanks, Jon


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:57:08 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Nitrogen and Sportwear

From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)


Subject: RE: Nitrogen and stout taps

"Well, dunno, it would seem like a lot of trouble and expense for the
purpose of selling beer faster, after all, how fast can customers drink
it?

Ever been to a ball park?  Time is money and with nitrogen, the beer
can come out like from a fire hose and never foam.  If you kept the
keg pressure that high with co2, you would not get any beer.

Many busy servers have switched to cans to sell it faster but canned
beer costs more and they have to deal with the empties.  That's why
the money is in nitrogen.

"It has always been my experience that the nitrogen/CO2 mixture with the
special tap actually is a slower pour.  I have watched as the Barista
dispensed, waited, dispensed, waited, and asked my patience for the full
pint.

Don't know bout the special stout tap or what a Barista is but the
classic "Pilsener Pour" is a foamy pour that is repeatedly refilled
until the glass is full of beer and the head is like an icecream cone.
Most clods do not want to wait that long so unfoamy beer is in.
But it has nothing to do with nitrogen.

You can buy special Pilsner taps that hiss out the beer to make the
foam on demand but you can use an ordinary tap and just crack it open a
bit to get all the foam you want.  This of course assumes that it is
real beer capable of producing a head.  All bets are off with Bud.

Come to think of it, my Pilsner tap never worked right unless I
had enough keg pressure to over carbonate if left that long and
so rather than raise and lower the pressure everytime I serve, I
just quit using the feature.  Enter nitrogen....  You could serve
and store at high pressure, use the foamy tap and not worry
about overcarbonation..... sounds like where I came into this.

But again, it is not the nitrogen that produces the foam, it's
the beer and co2.  The nitrogen just makes it foam, if you see
the difference.  If not, I quit.

"Guess you are getting smarter yet, Jack!  :>)

But my brain keeps getting smaller so I am running out of place
to put all the new found genius.

 ...............

From: MacRae Kevin J <kmacrae at UF2269P01.PeachtreeCityGA.NCR.COM>
Subject: Roller Wear...

"I'm about 6'2" 205 - 215lbs. Does this classify me as a "Heavy Brewer"?

I said "heavy user".  Unless you are a USER, you will never notice
it.  Brewing doesn't count.

I would be concerned about a 10 lb variation in weight, especially
if it occurs right after "using".

"Where can I find the new line of "Roller Wear"?  It's not at Sears,
Home Depot or any of the Big and Tall Men Shops nearby.

You need to go to the yuppie sports wear departments.  It's with
the skating stuff.. you know like for ROLLER blading.  I almost
said roller skating but none of the young folk would know what
I was talking about.

"I do agree with the point of efficency and throughput dropping off,if 
only slightly.    We can't remain teenagers forever.   But I know of
folks  in their 60's and 70's who haven't yet experienced Total Failure.

I should be so lucky, but then again, it depends on how one
defines "total".

If one can grab a piece of grain now and then, the rollers can not
be totally worn, can they?

js



- --
Visit our WEB pages:
                        Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp
                        Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf
             ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday



- -- 
Visit our WEB pages: 
                        Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp
                        Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf
             ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 19:08:31 -0900
From: Rob Miller <robm at alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Using Malto-Dextrin/Lactose



Christopher from Newmarket NH wrote:

>I had the same problem w/ a blueberry ale that I brewed up
>this summer.  After all the fermentation had completed, the
>nice blueberry flavor had disappeared and there was now a
>strong sourness to the beer.  And in fact, I posted the
>same questions to the hbd about it, try a search.  Everyone told
>me not to use malto-dextrin at bottling because it may ferment,
>etc...

I would like to relate a similar experience of mine.  First off, =
blueberries are notorious for needing some "help" in retaining their =
flavor--without said help they can be pretty insipid.  This is true for =
jams, blueberry pies, whatever.  Lemon juice is the usual cure, but =
obviously does little to help the sourness problem.  I recently brewed =
up a 6-gallon batch from essentially a brown ale recipe.  It was a =
bumper year in southeast Alaska for wild blueberries, and we picked lots =
so I tried putting the secondary ferment on 2 lbs. of berries per gallon =
(12 lbs.total berries).  Upon tertiary racking, my partner and I took a =
measured volume of the brew, had a couple of pounds of lactose on hand, =
and determined just how much lactose it would take to knock out the =
sourness.  What worked for us was 2 1/2 cups of lactose (scaling up from =
a cup sample of beer and teaspoons measurments).  Yes, it needed all of =
2 1/2 cups--it was SOUR.  The result was not anything resembling =
sweet--just not puckering sour. =20

Following that, we got out the plastic squeeze-lemon of lemon-juice and =
started counting drops.  What we came up with was 7 teaspoons for the =
entire 6 gallon batch. =20

It has been bottled for about 3 weeks now (used 3/4 cups of corn sugar). =
 I took a bottle to a party last weekend to get some people's opinions.  =
I was a little apprehensive because it tastes like a "blueberry kriek =
beer", not a "mildly fruit-flavored beer".  But that was the effect I =
was after.  Yes, I know that 'kriek' means cherry, so spare me the =
technical correction but you get my point.  It is not a fruit-flavored =
beer, it is a FRUIT beer.  I think it will require a lot of aging to get =
anywhere near its potential, but damn....it's good already and I'm not =
the only one who thinks so. =20

I'm just supplying this as a data point.  Anyone wanting more =
particulars is welcome to email me.  The brew was OG 1.042 (not counting =
the fruit addition) and I used Wyeast #1056 (American Ale). =20

I guess my point is....don't hesitate to dump in those unfermentable =
sugars if they suit your purpose.  Provided your sanitation measures are =
adequate.  I guess there are some wild yeasts that can ferment the =
stuff, but so far the only carbonation I've seen is just what I would =
expect from the corn sugar and the beer shows some real promise. In =
fact, I never noticed much fermentation as a result of the blueberry =
addition, just some very slow secondary action for a few weeks.  Since I =
could find no reliable advice on how much stuff to add (the best info on =
fruit beers I could find was in Randy Mosher's "The Brewer's =
Companion"), I decided to go with the tried and true taste test.  Of =
course, YMMV.=20

Keep on Brewing!

Rob Miller=20
Nunatak Brewery
Juneau Alaska

about 5 miles from the Alaska Brewing Company (winner of the most medals =
of any brewery so far in the GABF...no affiliation, yada yada yada, just =
local pride) and thousands of miles NW of Jeff Renner (but it's probably =
warmer here!)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 26 Dec 97 04:30:17 UT
From: "Bruce Gill" <b2g at classic.msn.com>
Subject: Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 20:53:32 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner

GuyG4 at  aol.com wrote:

>. . . . What was the difference between "eastern" beer and "western" beer, if 
there's anyone out there old enough to remember when there was a distinction?

Jeff (nerenner at umich.edu) replied:
>George Fix says that it is the use of rice rather than corn in western 
Pilsners.  I really like the flavor of corn, and I think rice is pretty 
flavorless (I've never tried it though).

While Jeff's take on rice is generally accurate, rice does have its place.  I 
say "generally" because I find the use of 10% white rice with 25% corn (the 
balance six-row, with a touch of wheat) makes for a very good cream ale -- 
happened to take second place in the American lager/Cream Ale category in the 
Georgia Peach State contest a few years back.

And *wild* rice -- well, that's another story.  I recently made a blonde ale 
with 30% wild rice (70% six-row) and Northern Brewer, Tettnanger, and Spalt 
hops that's been getting great comments.  Used the BrewTek Australian yeast, 
which enhances the wild rice nutty, sweet flavor.

Rice, per se, is not a bad ingredient.  Like any ingredient, just watch what 
you're trying to acheive and how you craft the recipe.

Happy Brewing,
Bruce in Atlanta



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:21:53 -0600
From: snowshoe at webtv.net (dan salai)
Subject: hop tea, grain tea, (?) tea

I recently made a porter in which I wanted to try using the method of
boiling some of my hops separately to make a "tea" to add to my wort.
All went well, I kegged and force carbonated. However, when I drew my
first beer I realized that I didn't steep nearly enough roasted grains
for the color and taste I was aiming for. I wondered if I could make a
"steep" tea with some 500L black patent (and a little malto dextrin to
gravity balance the additional water) and add this directyly to the keg.
It seemed to work. So then I added to the keg some cherry flavoring in
small increments to get just where I wanted the cherry flavor to be.
Again success.
Is there a down side to this? As far as I know things like specialty
grains, hops, artificial flavorings, etc. don't play an extremely
significant role in fermentation. What's then to stop one from starting
with a general, fermented, "base" beer, kegging and dialing in the
flavor profile later on? The only difference between my favorite pale
ale and porter recipes are hops and specialty grains. Wyeast 1028 seems
to work for both and both have O.G. s aroung 1050.  



Return to table of contents

---