---

	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:
  Re: Oven bottle sterilization (Scott Murman)
  re: Oven bottle sterilization (Dick Dunn)
  Bottle sterilization ("NFGS")
  Re. Alt hopping schedule (Dean Fikar)
  Reinventing the wheel (George_De_Piro)
  RE: Its the new dance craze... (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Hop-tea for concentrated worts (Matt Comstock)
  No Subject (Lou.Heavner)
  carboy handles really safe? ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Conditioning cider/mead (Andrew Krein)
  More parti-gyle.... ("Riedel, Dave")
  Re: Nottingham/Imperial/Oxygenation ("Tidmarsh Major")
  Search Engines (mdsn)
  Oxynater TM/Tidmarsh's Nottingham/Dry Lager Yeast ("Philip J Wilcox")
  calculating bicarbonate / cheap electronic parts? (Nathan Kanous)
  RE: Liberty Ale Hopping ("Marc Battreall")


Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as
every sentence deserves proper punctuation...

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.org

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: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Oven bottle sterilization



> as far as (Rob Wellman's) comment on weakening the glass 
> structure, I would suspect that this would occur at much higher temps 
> (over 400 degrees)and only after many cycles.
> 
>  Steve

I wasn't going to speak up about this since you folks said you'd been
through the archives, and my experience is already there, but...  I
bottle baked through about 1/2 dozen batches with the oven set at 250F
for 30 min.  I started seeing structural damage in my bottles after
3-4 cycles, and even started having bottles fail (break) at high
carbonation.  Obviously, the thin-walled ones were the most damaged,
European bottles being the worst.

IMO, it's just not worth the hassle and possible fear of giving a
friend or loved one a present that's going to rupture.  We're talking
about a 5%ABV solution, so rigorous sanitation is really overkill at
bottling time, and sterilization is verging on silliness.  I think it
might have been Jim Liddil who posted a while back that not even
E. Coli would survive in 5%ABV.  And I know you're all washing your
hands before you bottle;)

SM



Return to table of contents


Date: 25 Aug 98 23:32:00 MDT (Tue)
From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Oven bottle sterilization

"Steve Blanchard" <steve_blanchard at hotmail.com> wrote:
[commenting on a short/mild oven sterilization process]
> His times would be inadequate if sterilization is the goal.  Hospital 
> based standards for sterilization using dry-heat devices (like an oven) 
> dictate sterilization times of 60-120 minutes at 320-375 degrees 
> Fahrenheit.  Bacterial killing using dry heat requires higher temps and 
> longer times than the use of traditional steam sterilization which use 
> steam under pressure.  As far as his comment on weakening the glass 
> structure, I would suspect that this would occur at much higher temps 
> (over 400 degrees)and only after many cycles.

The problem is not the actual "oven temperature" as registered by the
thermostat; it is the localized uneven heating.  An electric oven is not
designed to come up to 400F or so slowly and gradually.  Rather, it cranks
up a large heating element and monitors the temp in the oven until it's
close enough...then the oven starts cycling on/off.  The assumption is that
you bring the oven up to temperature, put something in with the door mostly
closed, and take it out.  During the cooking time, the cycling of the
element is relatively gradual, but during the initial heat-up it can be
brutal.  I wouldn't subject bottles to that.  It's not the matter of
bringing the glass up to 400F...which it can probably take OK.  It's the
matter of bringing some localized parts of the glass to a much higher temp
(both higher temp and non-uniform temp, which creates uneven stresses)
because they're close to the element.

Try baking a cake by putting it in a cold oven with the oven set to the
bake temp and taking it out when the cake tests done.  Few ovens will
produce a result even edible, let alone pleasant.  It's a lesson in how the
oven behaves in heating.
- ---
Dick Dunn          rcd at talisman.com          Hygiene, Colorado  USA
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Get the right tool for the job."


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:26:00 -0700
From: "NFGS" <fjrusso at coastalnet.com>
Subject: Bottle sterilization

Sometime in the past week or two I saw a question raised about bottle
sterilization and the use of the microwave oven.  I thought the question was
a very good one and that maybe one of our readers with a Bio background
would have an answer.  But I never saw one.

Question:  If using a microwave oven to sterilize bottles is it the heat or
the micro wave that are actually due the sterilization?

  I have in the past use the microwave to sterilize my utensils for my
making wine.  But brewing beer is different and seems to be more sensitive
to infections.

Now the question has been raised twice.  Hope someone with a good background
has a good answer.


The foundation for all knowledge begins with simple three words: 'I Don't
Know'.

Frank
fjrusso at coastalnet.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:33:23 -0500
From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net>
Subject: Re. Alt hopping schedule

> Alt hopping schedule ("Chuck Mryglot")
>
> In the latest issue of Zymurgy there is an article on Alt.  I was interested
> in the hopping schedule.  Bittering hops as usual, flavoring hops added when
> heat turned off, and then aroma hops added after wort has cooled to 180
> degrees F.
>
> This is a new twist to me.  Has anyone else used this schedule?  Is this
> typical/unique for Alt?
>
> Chuckm
>
I was under the impression that an alt should not have not have hop
aroma but that some hop flavor was okay.  I, too, was puzzled by the
article.  Earlier this year I first wort hopped an alt with Tettnanger
which added some flavor but no discernible aroma.   I liked the result
and it seemed to be to style as evidenced by judging comments from
several competitions, incl. the AHA/NHC.  Does anyone else FWH their
alts?

- -------------
Dean Fikar - scorched and thirsty for alt in Ft. Worth, TX
(dfikar at flash.net)




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:51:20 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Reinventing the wheel

     Hi all,
     
     Dr. Pivo has raised the question of why should homebrewers bother to 
     listen to research from brewing scientists?  They obviously are only 
     interested in making American mega-brew, and their conclusions cannot 
     possibly apply to homebrewers or anybody else making "flavorful" beer.
     
     Doc P specifically questions the necessity of pitching a large amount 
     of healthy yeast, encouraging readers to try an experiment where a 
     batch is split and pitched at different rates.  This may be 
     interesting, but I ask this:
     
     Why test something that countless homebrewers do every day?  I've 
     underpitched.  I would bet that *everybody* else here has, too.  What 
     happens when you underpitch?  The list is so long and well known that 
     it hardly needs repeating (but I'll list a few things anyway, for the 
     newcomers):
     
     1.  Long lag time.  During this time wort spoilers can grow unhindered 
     by fermentation by-products.  Ever notice a slight vegetal taste in 
     your beer?  I have in mine.  That is formed during the long lag.  You 
     shouldn't be waiting 12-36 hours to see Kraeusen formation.
     
     2.  Stuck fermentation.  The folks at Clinitest would be so happy if 
     everybody underpitched.  The odds of stuck fermentations go way up 
     when abusing the yeast.  Think of how their sales could soar!
     
     3.  If your ferment doesn't stick, it will be slow at best.  Perhaps 
     some people like to wait 2 or more weeks for the ferment to finish.  I 
     prefer my primary fermentation to be done in 3-5 days.  I am not the 
     patient sort.
     
     4.  Flavor effects.  The good doctor suggests that perhaps the flavor 
     effects of underpitching would be desirable in beer styles other than 
     bland light lagers.  My idea of "full flavored" is a bit different, 
     though.  I like malt (and even hops).  Fusel alcohols, vegetal notes, 
     and ethyl acetate are not what I want giving my beer its "full 
     flavor".
     
     There is a not-so-fine line between questioning the value of 
     scientific work and reinventing the wheel.  Imagine where humanity 
     would be if every scientist had to start at square one every day 
     because the previous body of work was not trusted!
     
     As I have said here in the past, homebrewery experiments are often so 
     variable-ridden as to be of highly questionable value.  In Dr. Pivo's 
     proposed experiment he omits a few important points:
     
     1.  Cell counts and viability testing.  I would not be quick to trust 
     that the starter is homogenous and that cells with the same viability 
     will end up in the different worts.  Ever swirl your starter to 
     resuspend the yeast?  A lot of it can stick to the bottom.  Still more 
     ends up in the foam.  What actually got into the wort?
     
     2.  Aeration of the wort.  What are you going to do to make certain 
     that the worts are identically aerated?
     
     3.  Fermentation temperature:  just putting all the carboys in the 
     same vicinity may not do the trick.  The heat of fermentation will 
     make the overpitched wort quite a bit warmer than the underpitched one 
     (which may not even be showing activity for 36 hours).
     
     4.  Taste panel evaluation.  Who is your panel?  A group of 
     homebrewers that may or may not have actual taste panel training?  How 
     many of them will you use?  Why should any of us trust their palates 
     without knowing anything about them?
     
     The last bit is the most important thing (in my mind).  I don't know 
     who you are, Dr. Pivo.  Why should I trust anything you say about how 
     a beer tastes?  Why should anybody trust what you or I say?
     
     At least I have a small army of brewing scientists on my side of the 
     fence.  I also have a fairly decent reputation as a brewer.  I'll 
     stick with my own experience and that of people who I know and trust.  
     Everybody should.
     
     As Jim Liddil has grown so fond of writing, do what works for you.  If 
     you can pitch straight from a package of Wyeast and make beer that you 
     like, don't change a thing.  The point of brewing on any level is to 
     please the customer.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:22:22 -0500
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Its the new dance craze...

From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)

>Hotfoot Brewing (Northern California Swing)

Ooouuchhhh, we feel for ya buddy.

Been there, done that.  Now I slowly open the hose tap and let it run a
minute or two and then after all the sputtering hissy fit is over, then I
open full.

Burnt my leg on the burner frame last month, wife gave me some vitamin E oil
to rub on.  It's supposed to speed healing and banish scar quicker (she
says).

Ron

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:12:14 -0400
From: Matt Comstock <MComstock at shepherdcolor.com>
Subject: Hop-tea for concentrated worts

Hello folks

First, I'm on batch two, so very new at the game (and already manipulating
variables).  I've read that hop utilization during the boil decreases with
increased specific gravity of the wort.  I started batch one without the
'kit' and used a one-gallon wine jug for a fermenter.  I boiled a pound of
malt in a half-gallon of water and dumped the concentrated wort into the
fermenter containing a half-gallon of cold water.  I used pellet hops during
the boil and threw some more in near the end of the boil.  The hour boil
reduce the volume to about half its initial level.  The beer at bottling
time did not have any hop flavor.  I realize the type of hops, and the
amount used would have a dramatic effect on the flavor.  However, the
dependence of hop utilization on wort gravity led me to try preparing a
hop-tea along side the wort boil for my second batch.  I just boiled two
separate pots for an hour.  One with malt, one with hops. I followed the
same hop schedule I would have otherwise, boiling, finishing, etc.  At the
end of the boil, I just combined the contents of the two pots.  I have not
seen this type of thing addressed here, or elsewhere.  It seems that
preparing a hop-tea as I've described would lead to consistent and higher
hop utilization, independent of wort gravity, although recipes might have to
be adjusted to factor for the increased utilization.  Has this been
discussed here before?  I'm positive you've tried this, though,
experimentalists all.  What results can I expect?

Thanks, Matt 


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:57:52 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com
Subject: No Subject

     "Wilson, Todd (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson at mci.com> writes:

     I have 3 kegs hanging off of a 3 way manifold in my fridge.  If the
     pressure
     on my co2 is set to 15psi am I getting 15psi to each keg or am I
     getting
     5psi to each keg?


     I'm a little behind and I'm sure this has been already answered.
     Unless there is flow induced pressure drop, the pressure will
     eqilibrate to 15 psi everywhere.  Reminds me of the purchasing agent
     who ordered 2 heat exchangers rated at 75 PSIG each when the spec
     called for one rated for 150 psig.  ;)

     Cheers!

     Lou Heavner - Austin, TX


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:59:48 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: carboy handles really safe?

 "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills at compuserve.com> wrote:
>You will recall that quite a while ago I asked whether any HBD'ers had 
>ever broken the neck off of their carboy when carrying via a carboy 
>handle.  
>...
>
>I believe that (with less than a 5% probability of error) we can say that
>carboy necks do not break by carrying them with a carboy handle.  

Gee, Fred, you didn't report your sample size so that we can verify 
your conclusions. Were you using binomial statistics??????

  - Bryan

Bryan Gros	gros at bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm



Return to table of contents


Date: 26 Aug 1998 16:07:30 -0400
From: Andrew Krein <Andrew.Krein at noaa.gov>
Subject: Conditioning cider/mead


     I'm a relative newcomer to home brewing and I have a question for the 
     learned contributors to this digest.  I found an interesting recipe 
     for what was called Apple Pie Mead that I plan on making for the fall. 
     The recipe calls for 2 gallons of fresh apple cider and 12 lbs of 
     honey.  I'd like to make a sparkling beverage, but at the end of the 
     recipe it only stated to "condition if you dare".  This seems to imply 
     that making this sparkling would generate a large amount of pressure 
     in the bottle.  How much corn sugar should be used to bottle condition 
     and what type of bottles would be best?  I'd like to use standard beer 
     bottles and cap as I would any other beer I've made.  Would champagne 
     bottles and champagne caps with wire hoods be required.  Could 
     beer-cappable champagne bottles be used?  I'd appreciate any 
     information.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:18:41 -0700
From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD at PAC.DFO-MPO.GC.CA>
Subject: More parti-gyle....

In HBD #2803, Chris Cooper and the Parti-Gyle police
caught up to me, noting that I had apparently had 
extraction of 48 pts-lb/gal.  Whoops.  [Kids, don't try
to post brewing details without your notes]

Review:  I made a small (3.5 gal) batch of Barleywine, 
added some chocolate malt and sparged to collect the
runnings for a brown ale.

Detail:	19.2 lbs Hugh Baird Pale Ale malt
	0.8 lbs Hugh Baird Crystal 80L

Mashed in with 1.33 qts/lb and did a single infusion mash
of 151F.  The gravity of the first runnings was 1.091, so I
collected 3.8 gals to adjust to 3.5 gal of 1.099 (my target)
and added water to end up with 3.5 gal post-boil.  [If you
aren't aiming for a particular SG, then you don't have to 
add water here]

Added 3 oz HB Choc. malt and enough sparge water to 
get near top of grain bed, then stirred briefly.  Let bed stand
for approx. 15-20 mins, then recirc'd for 15 mins.  Sparged
until collected 5.5 gal - end of sparge water.  SG at this
point was 1.054 (wanted around 1.048), so added water
until I had 8.25 gal of 1.038 wort.  Final wort was about
6.5 gal at 1.046 (before runout).

So, with some dilution with plain water, I ended up with
3.5 gal 1.099 BW and 6.5 gal 1.046 Brown Ale.  (Note:
these are pre-runoff volumes, there were losses due to
equipment and hops).  I calculate this to be 32.2 pts-lb/gal.

cheers,
Dave Riedel
Victoria, BC, Canada



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:00:01 -0700
From: "Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Nottingham/Imperial/Oxygenation

Phil--

Thanks for the reply.  I, too, found the behaviour odd for 
Nottingham.  I don't have the packages, but I noted that the 
expiration date was 11/00.  Since I don't think the Y2K bug is 
raising its head, I don't think that the yeast is old, and it was 
refrigerated when I bought it, so I have no evidence of abuse.  After 
the slow start, it seems to be doing just fine.

Tidmarsh Major
tidmarsh at mindspring.com
Birmingham, Alabama


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:41:37
From: mdsn at iname.com
Subject: Search Engines

I saw your listing on the internet.  I work for a company
that submits websites to search engines.  We can submit
your website to over 350 of the worlds best search engines
and directories for a one time charge of only $39.95!
If you would like to put your website in the fast lane
and receive more hits, call me on our toll-free number
listed below.  

All work is verified!


Sincerely,

Mike Davidson
(800) 484-2621 X5568
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:47:01 -0400
From: "Philip J Wilcox"<pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com>
Subject: Oxynater TM/Tidmarsh's Nottingham/Dry Lager Yeast





From: Philip J Wilcox at CMS on 08/26/98 09:47 PM

Dear HBD,

Low and Behold after cleaning off my entire workbench, all the way down to
the March 95 Great Lakes Brewing News I found nothing. However I did
immediately start putting things back to where they belonged and did run
into yet another stack of Brewing Papers. And in that stack was the
original info that came with my Oxynater. I quote: "The OXYNATER tm is a
1.1 cubic foot disposable tank filled with 99.9% pure oxygen and is the
foundation of the system which uses a regulator, hose and a 316 stainless
steel diffusion stone. You only have to give you wort two 15-second bursts
of oxygen to a 5-6 gallon batch to properly oxygenate the wort. The tank is
good for 15-20 batches."

So by my math that gives us 225-300 seconds. Since I was using 20 secs
that's 11-15 batches. Which is what my original $16.95 Oxynater bottle gave
me. So what's the volume to weight conversion difference between 1.1 cubic
feet and 1.7 oz's in the replacement bottles?  Without a chemistry book I'm
not even going to attempt the molar conversion O2 at 15.9994. Freshman Chem
was a decade ago, even if it was during my Junior year. Anyone else want to
take a shot at it? Someone commented recently that Oxygenating got rid of
their "Homebrew taste".  Not mine. I didn't lick it till I stopped using
city water. Now I use water from the brewpub for ales and Culligan for
Lagers. Treated of course to whichever Famous brewing profile that is
appropriate. Lately its been the "Oops I forgot" City...
- --------------------
In a private email Timarsh revealed that he bought his Nottingham from a
refrigerated supply and it had a Nov. 2000 expiration date. And it was fine
after it finally kicked in. No signs of abused yeast anywhere. That's just
wierd. Would it be possible that the pH got way out of whack? Like above 9?
I know my local water supply comes out of the tap about there, not that I
use it--I don't. Too much chlorine. Could that be it? I don't know, its
just plain wierd. I've never seen a Beer yeast do that. Wine yeasts on the
other hand...They have done this to me in mead making. So maybe its a
nutrient thing. Not enough FAN and all that...Alexanders is known for that
but not M&F. What temp was the Fermentation Chamber. To me it doesn't sound
likely but the results of Yeast shock are described the same way? What was
the temp difference between the wort and the "Rehyrated" yeast? More than
10-15 degrees? That could be your culprit. Or how about this one. How long
were they rehydrated? More than 10-15 min? That can be bad too, because
they quickly eat all the O2 in the water and since there is nothing to eat
or build cells with Nap time can come on pretty fast. Floc. Floc. Floc...
- -----------------------------
On my brew day 3 weeks ago we stepped up the batch size from 12.5 to 17.5
gals of Pils. Can you say a pound of Saaz!!!! Smelled awesome! Rather than
under pitch I made the additional brewer pitch the "emergency" yeast. Which
was 14 g of Dry New Amsterdam Lager yeast. We rehydrated as normal but as I
was ready to pitch I realized the 60 degree temp difference between the
105F yeast and the 45F wort. Looking at my watch I saw it had been 12 min
already and not seeing any real alternatives I just pitched it. Next day
the Wyeast Pilsen had taken off but not the dry stuff. Day 2 nothing. In
goes another packet of New Amsterdam, just sprinkled on. Day 3 it kicks in
and fills the fermentation chest with sulphery odors. ick. I tell my
partner not to worry it will go away, eventually.  Since this was obviously
not the best way to use dry Lager yeast, anyone have any tips on doing it
any better?

Phil Wilcox--filling in for Dave Burley who's on vacation ;<)
Hope this helps! Prost! Keep on Brewin' I love my 2-tier system, except for
the crashing sound it makes when my wife hits it with her volkeswagon...




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:08:33 -0400
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: calculating bicarbonate / cheap electronic parts?

My water analysis doesn't include a bicarbonate evaluation.  Is there a
simple way to calculate that from all of the other information (probably
some stupidly easy way from pH)?  I don't really want to have to conduct a
titration like back in chemistry class.  Of course, if I had a magnetic
stirrer...

Speaking of which, I've had all of the parts except one for a long time.
I'm looking for a 500 ohm potentiometer that can handle the 24 volts the
motor needs.  Any ideas where I could find one...cheap?

Thanks.
nathan in Madison


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:41:17 -0400
From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net>
Subject: RE: Liberty Ale Hopping


Jonathan asks in HBD 2807 about Anchor Liberty Ale Hops:

>i'm in the process of planning a liberty ale clone. I've hear rumor that it
>uses all cascades. anyone know this for a fact? there's some question as to
>whether it really uses all cascades over on
>rec.crafts.brewing. any of you enlightened scientist/brewer types know the
>scoop? thanks!

Jonathan,
This was a major project for me a while back also. I finally verified that
Anchor Liberty does indeed use Cascade hops exclusively. The info was based
on an article in All About Beer magazine a few months back (may 1998 Issue)
that was all about single hop variety brews. I feel that the information
provided in the article was accurate. It is fair to assume that All About
Beer was granted permission by Anchor to publish that information, there by
verifying it's authenticity. The article did not specify hopping rate or
schedules.
If you are interested in my recipe you can search the HBD archives and find
it there or I could try and dig it out of my files and send it to you
direct. In the meantime, some more advice I can give you regarding cloning
this fine beer is to use either Yeastlab Canadian Ale (A07) or Wyeast 1272
American Ale II yeast. My personal favorite was the Yeastlab. I have used
both. I would suspect that Anchor uses hop pellets for economy reasons as do
most micro's, but maybe not. I personally used hop plugs for boiling and
whole cones for finishing and dry hopping with equally good results. YMMV

Good Luck,

Marc

========================
Captain Marc D.Battreall
Islamorada, Florida
batman at terranova.net
captainbrew at hotmail.com

=======================
Captain Marc Battreall
Backcountry Brewhouse
Islamorada, Florida
batman at terranova.net
captainbrew at hotmail.com



Return to table of contents

---