---

	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:
  fruit fly bitter (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  240V GFCI Breakes ("Dave Flotree")
  RE: 240 grounding (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Non-pumpkin ale ("John Watts")
  Spray-on Sanitizer (Al Korzonas)
  Pumpkins... (Al Korzonas)
  Brewer's Gold (Al Korzonas)
  EEs (Al Korzonas)
  Cereal mashes ("Michel J. Brown")
  Re (sorta):no hot break (dbgrowler)
  Re: first wort hopping (Jim Graham)
  240V GFCI ("Nate Wahl")
  smoked malt (Randy Ricchi)
  Re: Gluten free beer recipe ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  homebrew cooking - salmon baked in foil (Scott Murman)
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Re: Mailing of HB Entries & Private E-mail Replies (John Simonetta)
  CO2 Cartridges ("Arthur McGregor")
  Kentucky Common (MaltyDog)
  lactic vs. phosphoric acid and Ca3(PO4)2 (Matt Comstock)
  Subject: Mild Ale ("John Arnish")
  SPAM source (Steve Stroud)
  Mash Thickness (Nathan Kanous)


Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!

Send your entries in for 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off yet?
Details:  http://www.theporch.com/~homebrew

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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:11:38 -0400
From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
Subject: fruit fly bitter

collective homebrew conscience:

paul n. wrote some stuff about how one fruit fly in my starter is not going
to ruin my beer.

i hope this is correct, since i ended up using the starter.  i had
discovered the fruit fly during the first step up, about 5 days before brew
day.  after extricating the fly from the foam (it never was immersed in the
liquid part of the starter), i decided that i would decide whether or not to
use it based on how it smelled and tasted over the next 4 days.  i stepped
it up two more times, and each time sampled the decanted liquid.  nothing
unusual - just like every other starter i've done.  

the beer was pitched sunday at 4 pm.  it's gone past high krausen and is
going to be ready to rack this weekend, at which point i will probably make
a decision on whether to use the sediment for the beer i'm brewing saturday.
this will again be based on nothing but sensory analysis (taste the green
beer).

any lurking long-term infections will be easily detected by the judges at
the st. louis brews happy holidays homebrew competition this december, where
this beer (and/or its successor) will be entered.  i'll be sure to post back
about those results. 

my decision to use the starter was based on my belief that every batch of
homebrew i brew (and i believe this about all non-pasteurized homebrew - yes
even yours, dear reader), is infected.  it's simply a question of degree.  i
guess i'll find out if i made the wrong decision when i get the judges
sheets back. (i'm assuming that nothing else in the process is going to
cause an infection - based on past experience.)

sorry about the drilled stopper question, paul, but i need two or three
holes in the stopper, not one.  to all who responded - thanks.

brew hard,

mark bayer


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:24:10 -0700
From: "Dave Flotree" <flotree at halcyon.com>
Subject: 240V GFCI Breakes

Someone asked if the subject breakers exist and what the price is.  I
installed a 50A GFCI breaker for a spa in my Square D panel.  Here are the
details:
  Mfg:     Square D
  Model:  QO250GFI (2 poles, 50A)
  Price:   $137 (retail at Stoneway Electric Supply, a Seattle electrical
wholesaler)

This breaker has both neutral and +/-120V connections, good for 4-wire
(+120, -120, Neutral, Ground) circuits to supply both 240V and 120V
equipment with ground fault protection.  The literature said that Square D
60A breakers do not support neutral (i.e., 240V loads *only*, no 120V loads
allowed).

(Side note:  someone asked about 3-prong outlets like those used for
electric ranges & clothes dryers.  According to the Square D literature,
some of such equipment is frame-grounded to the neutral and installers are
warned not to use GFCI breakers for such circuits.  It appears, according to
Alan T's post, that the NEC has been updated to obsolete such 3-wire
circuits)

 - Dave Flotree
  flotree at halcyon.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:59:27 -0500
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: 240 grounding

>>>
So, the circuit to your brewing equipment must have 4 wires,
two "hot" wires for the 240V source, one neutral and one ground.
<<<

I like the >>>, looks nice, think I will start to use it too.

Thanks for all the info. from several knowledgeable posters. It's great when
you ask a question, and get so much good info. Just when you think you
thought of everything, someone comes along and has more to offer, keep it up
guys and gals.

What still puzzles me, is why you would need a neutral conductor on a
standard 240 volt outlet.  We are talking about outlets here, as opposed to
stove wiring, which would not use an outlet. No, a stove would be hard wired
in.  It's a good point that the clock, etc.. would use 120 and require a
neutral conductor.  But would this be a standard 240 volt circuit, it sounds
like a combination 120/240 hookup.

Please correct me, cuz I really want to know, on a standard 240 outlet
(USA), should any appliance use the neutral?  I think not, it would seem to
violate the rules.

Back to the 4 wire thing, the neutral should be nonexistent.  You have 240
between the two hot wires, and the third wire should be ground for safety.
No neutral should be needed.  Now this dosen't mean that someone could not
wire up something using the ground for a neutral, but this would be against
the standard.  Am I crazy?  (I can take kidding).

Ron

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:35:12 -0500
From: "John Watts" <watts at top.net>
Subject: Non-pumpkin ale

Thought since the Pumpkin ale posts were starting (now I know it's fall!), I 
would share what happened with my NonPumpkin ale.

If anyone remembers (or cares!) I had asked a couple of months back about 
a pumpkin ale without pumpkin.  After a couple of replies, I plunged ahead.  I 
used a single mash w/7 lbs pale malt, 1 lb of crystal and, instead of pumpkin,
I grated up a couple of yams into the mash.  The color came out PERFECT!  I 
used first wort spicing with 2 cinnamon sticks, 5 or 6 cloves and 1 tablespoon 
of Pumpkin pie spice.  Now if I had just made sure that the temp was right!  
Problems aside, I wound up with 2 gallons to bottle.  After a week, it was well 
carbonated, but a little heavy on hops.  After another week, hops mellowed 
nicely, but very little pumpkin flavor. :(  
All in all, at least it came out as a nice spiced ale.

Hoppy Brewing!
John Watts
watts at top.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:53:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Spray-on Sanitizer

Badger writes:
>What do people use a
>spray on, and use right away sanitizer?  and what ratios?  I know some
>people use this for quick sanitizing of funnels, taps onsite, etc.  I have
>heard of bleach solutions, idofor solutions, etc.  what ratios though?  to
>be used in spray bottle.

I know that some do that with 70% ethanol, but that's:

1. dangerous (it flams!), and
2. 70% ethanol requires a 15 minute contact time.

Bleach is definitely out... any concentration strong enough to kill anything
is going to taint the flavour/aroma of your beer.  Forget bleach.

Iodophor, *technically* should be allowed to dry before use... it will kill
virtually all beer spoilers in 2 minutes or less, but some people say they
can taste/smell it even in very small quantities.  Personally I can't but
that doesn't mean that I'm representative (I may have low sensitivity to
iodine).  So, you can do this with iodophor, but you run the risk of
getting a judge who is sensitive to it and your beer getting dinged.

Peracetic acid is a possibility, but I don't know it's contact time.  Can
someone who has that sanitation textbook look it up?  Peracetic acid is
strong hydrogen peroxide and strong acetic acid (I'm pretty sure it's
stronger than just drugstore H2O2 mixed with vinegar... anyone?).  I
suppose you could get some off-aromas from the vinegar, but in such small
quantities?  You could try it with unchlorinated water in place of beer
and see if you smell it...

Actually, strong hydrogen peroxide could be enough, and it certainly
is flavour-neutral.  Still, contact time is an issue.  I wish I had
that sanitation textbook, but there are quite a few other books that
are ahead of it on my grocery list.

Oxine and StarSan are two other possibilities, but I don't know their
contact times.  I know that Oxine (chlorine dioxide) is said to be
completely flavour-neutral, so it's a good candidate if the contact time
is low enough.  Where can we find the contact times for Oxine and StarSan?
I would try Five-Star's website, but at the moment my Web access is down.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:28:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Pumpkins...

Scott writes (quoting Eric):
>> Am I the only one who makes beer INSIDE pumpkins?
> 
>Someone here used the pumpkin to lauter in. Stuck a slotted copper
>manifold in the bottom of a XXX-large one, and mashed inside.  Was
>that you?

I believe someone a few years ago actually FERMENTED in a pumpkin!
Now *that's* intrepid!

I would also like to note that some brewers (me, for example) make "pumpkin"
beer without any pumpkin.  I just used pumpkin pie spices and actually won
an award for it at the CBS Spooky Brew Review a few years ago.  Incidentally,
the Spooky Brew Review is coming up soon (judging is on Halloween).  I'm
sure there will be flyers at the Real Ale Festival (near Chicago) this weekend 
or there's a hyperlink to the CBS website from my website.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:50:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Brewer's Gold

Jeff writes:
>"Jay Krause" <krause at galis.com> asks:
>>A simple question I hope.  I am having trouble finding Brewer's Gold hops in
>>any form.  What would be a good substitute for this variety?
> 
>In _Using Hops:  The Complete Guide to Hops for the Craft Brewer_, Mark
>Garetz suggests substituting "Northern Brewer, Galena, or any other
>bittering hop to your liking."  He also says that its aroma is "not highly
>regarded, but reasonably neutral in character."  I think that flavor of
>boiling hops can come through even after a long boil, so you might get some
>differences.  He says that Bullion shares the same wild Canadian ancestor
>as Brewer's Gold, so it might be a good choice, although its "High oil
>content means that aroma may come through  stronger if boil times are short
>or when used in a very light lager."  He also says that Galena was bred
>from open pollination of Brewer's Gold.

I'm sorry, but this is another example why I say that "Using Hops" is
a book of fiction.  If Brewer's Gold aroma is "not highly regarded," then
why is it used for aroma in Pete's Wicked Ale?  Furthermore, anyone
who has actually smelled Brewer's Gold will attest to the fact that
they have a strong "black currant" aroma, and are therefore not
"reasonably neutral in character."  My recommendation would be Northdown,
Cluster or Phoenix, all of which have a "black currant" aroma (sorry that
I forgot to mention Cluster and Phoenix in my private email, Jay).

Lineage rarely works when it comes to substitution... only if you are
unable to get a sample would I use lineage to speculate on a substitute.
For example, Cascade is first-generation descendant of Fuggle... smell
any similarity?  I don't.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:02:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: EEs

Excuse the non-beer post, but since a lot of EEs have been active lately,
I'd like to consult with one that actually recalls some of the basics
(unlike myself).  Please email me directly.  Thanks.

Al.
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:46:00 -0700
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com>
Subject: Cereal mashes

As its that time of year (again) to start making lager and steam beer, 
I've a small question on cereal mashing. Do you really *need* to mash 
with a small (~10-15% of the grist) minimash, or can you simply add 
enzymes to the cereal, and saccharify as usual? It would appear that 
there would be no difference, but what the heck do I know ;^) Anybody 
ever try this? I'll be making Steem (tm) beer rsn, and follow-up with a 
CAP (Logger lager), and wanted to do a corn grits cereal mash for the 
CAP. TTYAL, God Bless, ands ILBCNU!

                Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR}
      2222 miles due west of Jeff Renner
                         homemade at spiritone.com
              http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html
    "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind"
          L. Pasteur


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:57:52 -0400
From: dbgrowler at juno.com
Subject: Re (sorta):no hot break

Jim,

Heat loss from a cheap cooler? Have you insulated the top? The
manufacturers don't insulate 'em because they're not concerned with
trapping rising heat. Get some expanding foam insulation, "Great Stuff"
or similar, and fill in the top. Makes a BIG difference.

If you must decoct to maintain temperature, I'd recommend pulling thick
mash to heat. Boiling kills enzymes, and mash enzymes are concentrated in
the liquid. Kinda works at cross purposes to what you want to do.

Mike Bardallis
Allen Park, MI

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:46:40 -0500
From: Jim Graham <jim at n5ial.gnt.com>
Subject: Re: first wort hopping

I've missed all of the discussion on first wort hopping until now
(didn't even see it), so my apologies if all of this has already been
said.....

In HBD #2849, From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> writes:

> Allen writes:

>> methods/algorithm/programs for calculating IBU.  Should these hops be
>> considered to been added to boil for some particular time (90', 60' 30',
>> 10')?, or at some fraction (1.5 x, 0.5 x, etc) of their alpha acid
>> content.

I'm not a professional brewer, but I am learning from several...and from
several advanced homebrewers who are much more experienced than I am, and
the general consensus around here seems to be:

   1) First wort hopping doesn't do much for flavor or aroma except
      with noble hops

   2) First wort hopping does, on the other hand, seem to help reduce
      the problem of boil-overs.  I'd already noticed this in my own
      brews before hearing others mention it, btw.  Note that this
      doesn't mean that it *PREVENTS* boil-overs...just that it
      *HELPS*.

   3) The brewmaster that I've learned most of what I know these days
      from has a fixed amount that he uses for first wort hopping---take
      30% of your 60 minute hop addition and make that your first wort
      hop addition.  I basically follow this rule, but I also try to
      keep the amounts something easy to measure w/o a good scale (e.g.,
      if I'm using pellets, some even fraction of an ounce, or if I'm
      using plugs, some even fraction of a half-ounce).

Oh, one thing to keep in mind:  As your boil time for hops goes beyond
60 minutes, the extraction rate more or less levels off.  You might get
a bit more extraction than you would at 60 minutes, but unless you're
really, really set on an exact number, the difference is probably not
worth worrying about.  I started out using 90 minutes as the boil time
for my FWH addition, and comparing that to using 60 minutes.  That didn't
last very long....  Being a hop-head, an extra 0.2 IBU (that's a real
number I just grabbed from the recipe for my red ale---I re-calculated
it based on using 90 minutes for the FWH instead of just lumping it in
with the 60 minute hop addition) here or there just isn't going to bother
me.  :-)

> As an aside: Personally, I felt that the FWH added no aroma, and a lot
> of hop flavour.  I typically add hop flavour with additions at T-15
> and my gut feeling is that I would rather put the flavour hops in the
> boil for 15 minutes rather than 70 minutes.

I agree....  I don't change my flavor/aroma hop schedule when I'm doing
first wort hopping.  If I get a bit more flavor or aroma, fine....  Btw,
when I brew a style that specifically wants less hop flavor/aroma (e.g.,
the oatmeal stout I just brewed), I don't do any FWH.  Oh, one other
thing...when the brewmaster I mentioned above and I brewed his No Doubt
Stout (and the accompanying Russian Imperial Stout he makes using the
first 1/2 BBL of wort) at the brewery this weekend...no FWH.  For him,
definitely the exception to the rule.

Later,
   --jim

- -- 
73 DE N5IAL (/4)                                      Ft. Walton Beach, FL
graham at tybj2.eglin.af.mil  ||  jim at n5ial.gnt.net             MiSTie #49997
                Ask not what your country can brew for you,
                  but what you can brew for your country.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:16:13 -0400
From: "Nate Wahl" <cruiser at dcache.net>
Subject: 240V GFCI

Brewers;

The GFCI I had installed for my spa was made by Square D, but it's rated 50
Amps.  I would think that they would also make 240V ones for smaller
ratings like you would want for a RIMS or whatever.  Nobody else seems to
make them, according to my electrician.  Unfortunately, I didn't have a
Square D breaker box, so I had to put in a 50A feeder to a seperate box for
it.

Try a nearby electrical supply house.

Regards,
Nate Wahl
An hour and a half South East of Jeff, in Oak Harbor, Ohio

PS, anyone going to the Real Ale Fest in Chicago this weekend?  Email and
we'll meet, provided they don't work me too hard!



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:59:48 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: smoked malt 

I am thinking of making a strong scotch ale with a hint of smoke character,
sort of along the lines of Old Skullsplitter (Orkney). I was planning on
using 1# of Hugh Baird peated malt from L.D. Carlson, with the balance
being pale ale malt; 5 to 6 gallons, 1.100 OG.

Does anyone have experience with this malt, and if so, can you tell me if
1# will be enough to get a hint of smoke (that's all I want)? It seems to
have a very light smoke character.

I am also curious about the German beech-smoked malt from Weyermann,
available from Crosby & Baker.  I know this would be used more for a
Rauchbier, not a scotch ale; but I'm wondering how much should be used,
percentage-wise, in the grist. Anyone? TIA.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:56:36 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Re: Gluten free beer recipe

I'm forwarding the following message about a gluten-free beer recipe.  
I'm no expert, so must take the writer's word for it that this recipe is 
gluten-
free.  I also replied with my comments directly.

The main concern I have with this recipe is the possibility of adding
unconverted starch due to not mashing the buckwheat malt.  This could
cause stability problems, as although starch is not fermentable by beer
yeast, it is fermentable by many bacteria and wild yeast.  Is there any 
reason why home malted buckwheat couldn't be mashed and lautered 
like barley malt?  I'm unfamiliar with this "grain", does it have a husk?  
If 
it's huskless, possibly rice or oat hulls could be added at mash out to 
make lautering possible.  

The malting regimen might also need tuning to preserve enough enzymes 
for mashing.  If malted buckwheat is too low in enzymes to convert, 
then 
the bulk enzymes available at homebrew stores could be added.   I have
a bottle I keep as backup in case of infusion accidents which has a GW 
Kent label.

The reason fermentation takes longer may be poor yeast nutrition, I'm 
unfamiliar with FAN levels in rice syrup, but my guess is they're lower 
than in normal malt extract.  Adding some yeast nutrient or boiling a 
tablespoon or so of dried yeast with the extracts might help.  I 
personally 
dislike the flavor molasses adds to beer, so wouldn't use it.

The recipe definitely has possibilities, though.  With the addition of a
high temperature mash to add some body and dry and/or first wort 
hopping to add more flavor, this could get close to something us beer 
snobs would like ;-}  Prost!

 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington, USA

>>> <MOTORADD at aol.com> 10/14/98 07:38PM >>>
I saw your posting and dug up the following from my archives.  (My wife is
gluten intoleran also)  I made this, and it was a bit "thin" almost like a
light cider. I hope to tinker with it a bit to darken it up.  I would
appreciate any suggestions.  I plan on emailing it to the fellow in 
Australia
also.  Feel free to post this, as I'm not a member of this newsgroup.  
Cheers!


In my obsessive quest for a good-tasting gluten-free beer this recipe is 
the
best so far. It ends up
tasting a little like Coors light, which is at least slightly better than 
no
beer at all. (really!) This beer
is still in the experimental stages, so feel free to play with the amount 
of
hops, etc. or to add other
GF ingredients such as molasses or malted millet.

Ingredients for 5 Gallons: 

        3 lbs. malted buckwheat (recipe follows)
        1 cup corn sugar
        1 oz. Saaz hops
        2 oz. Hallertauer Hersbrucker hops
        6 lb. rice syrup
        1 pkg. ale yeast (EDME)

Put crushed malted buckwheat into strainer bag, add to 1+ gallons of water 
in
brewpot. Keep
buckwheat in brewpot, stirring, until water starts boiling. Remove 
buckwheat
and add rice syrup,
corn sugar and + oz. each of the Saaz and Hallertauer hops. Boil for 30
minutes and add + oz.
each of the Saaz and Hallertauer hops. Boil for 15 minutes and add another 
+
oz. of each type of
hops. Boil for another 15 minutes to make a total boiling time of 1 hour, 
then
let the remaining 1 oz.
Hallertauer hops steep in the wort for 2 minutes. Strain into your 
fermenter
and pitch yeast when
cooled.

This "beer" will ferment for longer than most ales, for about 10 days. Add 
+
cup corn sugar for
bottling, and let the beer age for at least 1 week before drinking.

Instructions for Malting Buckwheat:

Since as gluten-free homebrewers we can't just go to our homebrew supply 
store
and buy malted
buckwheat or millet, we must malt it ourselves in order to brew with it.
Luckily, this is a pretty
simple process. First, obtain raw (that is, uncooked and untoasted) 
buckwheat
from a health food
store or co-op. (Cooked or "toasted" buckwheat WILL NOT germinate!) Rinse
about 1 lb. and let it sit for 30-48 hrs completely submerged in water,
rinsing
it off every 8 hours or so. The buckwheat will expand as it soaks up some 
of
the water and also
produce a sticky oily substance which should be rinsed off. Now put the
buckwheat into a strainer
or fine-mesh colander and let it sit in the open air in a cool dark place,
rinsing off every 8 hours to
prevent mold. After 1 day you will see rootlets forming. Let the buckwheat 
sit
in the open air for
about 2 days, or until some of the rootlets are about twice as long as the
grain bodies. Spread the
buckwheat out in a thin layer on several cookie sheets and bake in a 
200-250 
oven until the
buckwheat becomes hard and crunchy (and tastes remarkably like Grape-Nuts) 
At
this point you
may increase the temperature and make dark-roasted buckwheat, for darker-
colored beers. Use a
rolling pin or a glass jar to crush the buckwheat. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: homebrew cooking - salmon baked in foil


Thought I'd given up, didn't ya?  No, just been busy with other
things, and also some of my beer-inspired culinary experiments didn't
turn out too well (like the BBQ sauce that I posted).

This time we're making a more "serious" dish, since they seem to get
the most response.  Also, I'm probably going to put the recipes on my
web page (http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy) since I get requests
from time-to-time from people who missed the original posts.  Check
there in the future.

1 salmon fillet (1/2 lb. feeds about 1 person with a decent appetite)
4 oz. beer (give or take.  Don't drown the fish, but don't be gun-shy either)
assorted veggies to taste (sliced onions or carrots work well but
	                   aren't necessary)
1 or 2 garlic cloves
1 bay leaf
dill weed (huh, he said dill weed Beavis)
salt and pepper

Take a fairly large piece of aluminum foil and place the fillet in the
center, skin side down.  You can make this in a baking dish, or a fish
poacher, but where are you going to find one of those when you're out
camping?, and it doesn't really seem to taste as good.  Fold two sides
of the foil up, and crimp the corners (sort-of make a little boat).
After everything is inside, you're going to crimp-seal the rest of the
foil.  Pour the beer over the fish into the foil boat.  A nice fruity
light ale will work best, such as a pale ale, or Belgian ale.  Hoppy
beers would be fine.  Add the veggies (if desired), garlic, and bay
leaf, then sprinkle with dill, salt and pepper.  Crimp close the foil.
You want it to keep the steam inside.  Bake at 350F for 15-20 min.
Serve au jus (that means with the cookin' juice goober) with rice (or
whatever you like really).  If you're out fishing, you'll have to
improvise, but just remember not to puncture the foil so that the fish
gets steam cooked.

I've made this dish with other fish, but it seems to work best with
salmon.  Maybe because I really like salmon though.  Halibut is worth
trying, but beware of it drying out.  Stick with meaty fish.

Buon appetito and good fishing

 -SM-



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:39:46 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net>
Subject:  The Jethro Gump Report

		The Jethro Gump Report
	Just when you thought you were safe from further indignities, such as
Clinitest and Censorship, here comes another plague.....more JG Reports! And
you should be afraid, very afraid......Salman Rushdie heard about new JG
Reports years ago.....and he has been in hiding ever since.....Eric Rudolph
heard about them....and has been in hiding ever since.....Bill Clinton heard
about them.....and took up smoking cigars! No, really, he was so afraid that
he risked the Presidency to avoid them! And you thought this was all about
lying under oath!! NO, it was the JG Reports!
	Hell, even Dave Burley heard they were coming back....and even he has hit
the highway!!!!

>From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
>Subject: 1998 HBD Name-Dropping Award
> ...and the 1998 HBD Name-Dropping Award goes to (envelope please)...
>John Adams for "GABF: Trip Report" in which John name-dropped:
>	11 breweries,
>	8 bars and brewpubs,
>	25 people, and
>	15 commercial beers

	Dammit Al! There you go, naming a winner when you haven't even seen all the
contestants! Why I could blow John Adams' doors off with all the name
dropping I have on hold!!! Hell, he only posted on the GABF!!! I've got 2
MBAA conferences, 2 Iowa Beer Festivals,  an upcoming BrewPub convention,
and a GABF to enter into the "Name Drop Shop!"
	Next thing I know, YOU will be named an "Independent Counsel" and I will be
seeing your name AND photo in the 'Impulse Buy Rumour Rag' magazine rack
when I pay for kitty litter! SHAME, Sir!
	Just give an old fella that is getting some motivation back some time, eh?

ETOH Related Accident!!!
	Jethro has been hanging onto this one for some time, but this is
undoubtedly listed as an Alcohol Related Accident in the Highway Safety
statistics.....
	I went from the brewery in Des Moines to my home in Ames, a distance that
takes about 45 minutes, in mid afternoon, to retrieve some bits, on a day
in.....ah....June, or July of this year....and came across this.....the
aftermath.....
	Subsequent info revealed that the driver of the NEW truck had fallen asleep
 at  the wheel, in the morning, on his way north on I-35.....on waking, he
tried to correct, but found himself bounced about, as his fully laden
vehicle did a roll and spilled the contents of the lorry through the roof
onto the roadside.....
	The driver suffered no injuries greater than bruises and abrasions, praise
God, and though he still works for his employer, he is now driving an old
truck!!! (This one was valued  at  over 50K$, the load had been valued  at 
25-45K$, depending on who was asked.)
	Go to http://mozart.andinator.com/~zymie/jethro/dumpedtruck1.jpg and
http://mozart.andinator.com/~zymie/jethro/dumpedtruck2.jpg and
http://mozart.andinator.com/~zymie/jethro/dumpedtruck3.jpg to see the debris
left after several hours of clean-up.
	And Al, I not only drop names, I can document dropped beer!

Clinitest/Censorship?
	As one that has seen this debate bark on for more than a bit, I am pleased
to see it get a 'scientific' enema, courtesy of Louis Bonham.....one of the
many folks I would trust to handle the matter fairly.....but one of the few
that would know the difference between chook's and emu's......
	Someone mentioned NoKOMAREE, and some threats.....if you want to get
personal, I will......I was a subject of those rantings from that
wastrel....and  I considered them no more threat then, than I do an
objective review now, in a scientific treatment of a subject that has
continued to create more than a wee bit of controversy.....
	MY .02........"Thanks, Mr. Bonham."

Cheers!
Jethro Gump

Rob Moline
Court Avenue Brewing Company,
Des Moines, Iowa.

"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:24:36 -0400
From: John_Simonetta at ittsheraton.com (John Simonetta)
Subject: Re: Mailing of HB Entries & Private E-mail Replies

     On mailing homebrew competition entries:
     
     I would appreciate advice on the mailing of entries for homebrew 
     competitions.  I'm fairly sure that I can pack a box tight enough for 
     the entries to be intact when they reach their destination.  However, 
     I wonder if they will be shaken enough to be unsuitable (disturbed 
     sediment, exploding bottles) for the competition.  By the way, I am 
     aware it is illegal to ship homebrew, so let's just say I have this 
     friend...
     
     Regarding private e-mail replies:
     
     Being new to the HBD, I am curious as to why some people post 
     requesting private e-mail replies.  Isn't one of the premises of the 
     HBD an open discussion?
     
     Thanks for all your insights so far...
     
     John Simonetta  


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:53:42 -0400
From: "Arthur McGregor" <MCGREGAP at acq.osd.mil>
Subject: CO2 Cartridges

Hi Everyone!

There have been a few posts recently on using 2/3 liter PET bottles for
portable kegs, and using bike tire CO2 pumps to dispense with.  I have also
used the bike CO2 pumps for regular 5 gallon kegs and have found that the
standard CO2 cartridges sold for BB guns and paint ball guns have small
amounts of oil in them.  The purpose of the oil is for lubricating the
metal parts of the guns, and the taste of the oil becomes apparent if the
CO2 from the cartridges is used as the gas to dispensed the beer from the
keg.  The off flavor (after taste) became noticeable at an office picnic
when I first tried this (I didn't want to lug a 5 lb. CO2 tank and
regulator around).

The only place that I have found pure CO2 filled cartridges is from
Williams Brewing Co. (no affiliation, etc.).  I used them at a recent
office picnic where we had 2 kegs of homebrew for those who like real beer.
It worked great, and added no off flavors.  It took bout 5-6 cartridges for
empty both kegs.  As a side note, you can also take a regular bike or ball
pump and attach a quick disconnect to dispense beer if your going to
consume it in a few hours.

Hoppy Brewing,
Art McGregor  (Lorton, Virginia -- near D.C.)




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:55:56 EDT
From: MaltyDog at aol.com
Subject: Kentucky Common

Some time ago, I picket up Randy Mosher's book (I believe it 
is called Homebrewer's Companion, but since I'm at work, I 
can't verify that) and in it, in a list of beer styles, he included 
a style called "Kentucky Common," supposedly a old-style of
beer made in Kentucky, using a sour mash.

This is the only reference I've ever seen for this style. Does anyone
out there have any additional information on it? Was it
made commercially? If so, when? What companies made it,
what did it taste like? Anything along those lines would be
interesting to me.

Thanks,

Bill Coleman
MaltyDog at aol.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:21:12 -0400
From: Matt Comstock <MComstock at shepherdcolor.com>
Subject: lactic vs. phosphoric acid and Ca3(PO4)2

Regarding recent posts about lactic vs. phosphoric acid and Ca3(PO4)2

Al wrote:

>However, there is the issue of two hydrogens versus three and
the issue of varying concentrations (the lactic acid I get is 88% whereas
the phosphoric is only 10%).  Perhaps the chemists could comment on these
also?

I wrote to Al (and then edited today and sent to you, to check my answers):

First, I think lactic acid is a monoprotic acid, CH3C(OH)CO2H.  The 'acid'
part is the carboxylic unit on the end. I don't think the H on the 'OH'
group releases a proton under normal conditions (pH = 7 water).

In any case, if you look in the CRC Handbook it gives the pH values for 0.1N
solutions of (ortho-)phosphoric and lactic acid:

Phosphoric = 1.5
Lactic = 2.4

That is, for identical concentrations of phosphoric vs. lactic acid, the
former has a lower pH, as it is a stronger acid.  More bang for your buck.

This is reflected in the acid constants for the two:

KA = 
Phosphoric = 7.52 x 10E-3 (first proton dissociation)
Lactic = 1.37 x 10E-4

If you look at your acid sources, lactic = 88% and phosphoric = 10%, this
gives the approximate molarities:

Phosphoric = 1M
Lactic = 12 M

Let's say we take 1 mL of each and dissolve in 1000 mL, to give roughly
0.001M phosphoric and 0.01M lactic, I calculate the following pH:

Phosphoric = 3.05
Lactic = 2.96

Again, I'm rusty, and I'm completely ignoring the polyprotic behavior of
H3PO4 (like I did on that General Chemistry final exam, damn!), but it looks
like, as far as acidity is concerned, your two acid solution sources are
equivalent.  

This is cake to test empirically, just take two glasses the same size,
filled with water to the same level.  Add the same number of drops (or
whatever) of each acid source.  Check the pH (have a meter?).  Is it the
same for both solutions?  If so, 'acid strength' is the same for both acid
sources.  I'll trust lab results over my math any day.

The solubility of calcium salts is another story, and I'm already treading
on old, no-longer familiar ground, but it's clear that calcium lactate is
more soluble.  The CRC lists calcium lactate, Ca(C3H4O3)2, as soluble to 3.1
g in 100 cc cold water, and calcium phosphate, Ca3(PO4)2 to 0.002 g in 100
cc.  However, I don't know enough about water chemistry yet to comment
further (but I will anyway).  But you're right, if a few calcium ions see a
couple of phosphate ions, it's all over, baby, true love, it was written in
the stars.  They precipitate.

Interesting diversion. Check my math.

After A.J.'s post today:

As a chemist, this current discussion about calcium phosphate interests me
(ah jeez, so call me Dr. Matt).  I have been wallowing around in the
organometallic heteronuclear cluster realm a little too long, however.  This
is all very unfamiliar.

OK, so you add H3PO4 to a solution with calcium in it.  What ppts first.
Ca(H2PO4)2, Ca(HPO4)...?  Why do we have to wait for the (as A.J. points
out) small fraction of PO4--- to react/ppt Ca?  The CRC lists solubilities
in 100 cc of cold water:

Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O = 1.8 g
CaHPO4.2H2O = 0.0316 g
Ca3(PO4)2 = 0.002 g

Further, Le Chatelier would tell us that if one PO4--- ion was chewed up,
another would run out to take his place.  Precipitation is one hell of a
driving force.

Even further, with regard to the phosphate as yeast nutrient, isn't common
yeast nutrient diammonium phosphate, (NH4)2HPO4, and urea?  Adding yeast
nutrient could screw up your calcium concentrations the same way adding
H3PO4 would, by ppt calcium phosphate.

I'm having too much fun with this.

DAP, (NH4)2HPO4, diammonium phosphate, or ammonium hydrogenphosphate....

Further yet, I just tried this:

Two vials full of DI water, to one I added a spatula full of DAP.  To the
other, a spatula full of Ca(NO3)2 (hydrated - this is just a source of
soluble Ca++).  Both solids dissolved in water to give nice, clear colorless
solutions.  A third vial was charged with one squirt from each solution.
This immediately formed a cloudy white precipitate in the third vial.

So (NH4)2HPO4 + Ca(NO3)2 => 2 NH4(NO3) + CaHPO4 ? (white ppt)

The CRC handbook says CaHPO4.2H2O has a solubility of 0.032 g / 100 cc of
cold water.  (Oops, ammonium nitrate....  Now all I need is some diesel
fuel).

Yeast nutrient + calcium = ppt'n of calcium.

OK now here's the kicker:  why the hell did I just add both gypsum *and*
yeast nutrient to my mead (gypsum = CaSO4, yeast nutrient = DAP (?))

CaSO4 + (NH4)2HPO4 => (NH4)2SO4 + CaHPO4 ppt

Effectively, I just added ammonium sulfate to my must and gave it a nice
white precipitate at the bottom (if it ever settles!).

OK, here's another.  Yeast nutrient, if it contains urea, should not be
boiled if it needs to stick around as urea.  I swear I've seen recipes that
call for addition of yeast nutrient at the end of the boil.  Urea decomposes
above 80 C or so to give NH3 (quickly tied up as NH4OH is water) and CO2.
Boiling solutions of urea are used to slowly increase pH in reactions where
slow precipitation of M(OH)n are desired.

Uh, so take the chemistry out of my lab and into yours.  What's the deal
with yeast and calcium and phosphate and urea and ammonium ions.  

As usual chemistry is tricky.  Even if yeast simultaneously would like to
have both Ca++ and PO4--- around, adding both to the wort/must doesn't seem
to me like it'll work.

Dr. Matt

Ain't chemistry fun





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 98 08:50:00 -0600
From: "John Arnish"<arnishj at smtplink.dis.anl.gov>
Subject: Subject: Mild Ale


     The Greenman wrote
     
     ...Now I'd like to formulate a good mild recipe.  My homebrew budget is
     sacred yet small, so I can't afford to expirement too much.  Usually
     what I do is search every recipe archive and book and ask for people's
     good recipes, then I formulate from everything, or go with whatever
     recipe sounds best....
     
     
     I would suggest picking up the Sept/Oct issue of Zymurgy.  Ray Daniels has 
     a really good article on Milds, He also throws in a couple of recipies.
     
     John Arnish




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:50:43 -0400
From: Steve Stroud <strouds at gis.NET>
Subject: SPAM source

> If the HBD is still being gatewayed to rec.crafts.brewing,
> this is probably where the spammers are picking up email 
> addresses.

It is still being posted on rec.crafts.brewing.  Every issue is also
immediately published as a HTML document at http://hbd.org/hbd/   
This another easy source of email addresses for a web miner.  

Just be aware that if you post to HBD it is likely that you will start
receiving SPAM - personally I have a trigger finger on my delete key.

Steve


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:04:16 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Mash Thickness

The original question (I forgot the poster) was:

>Was reading up on stout in the Lewis book and he suggests using "a
>liquor-to-grist ratio of 2.5:1 to 3:1 ... for infusion mashing."
> Can anyone clarify this for me?

Now, I have a question...and a statement...whatever, here goes.

In Fix's book (VMO - don't have it with me at work) I seem to have come
away with the impression that he calculates a total amount of water
necessary and uses half the water in the mash and half for the sparge.
I've tried this.  I think I came out with a water:grist of 1.7 quarts per
pound of malt (sorry for the antiquated un-metric units).  That's a little
higher than the responses to the above question.

I've seen various ratios recommended for different styles of beer.  Here's
my question...

How does mash thickness influence the various enzymes in the mash?  More
specifically, how does a thick mash influence saccharification (alpha and
beta) as well as proteolysis (again, peptidases and proteases)?  Similar
question for thin mashes.

Is a thick mash a more favorable environment for proteolytic events?  Is a
thin mash more favorable for saccharification?  Sorry so many questions at
once, just trying to clarify what I'm asking.
nathan


Nathan in Madison, WI


Return to table of contents

---