---

	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:
  Refractometer (William Frazier)
  NA Beer (Ken Schwartz)
  Low/No alcohol beer (William Frazier)
  Re: Sankey ("Scholz, Richard")
  starter rates (Marc Sedam)
  pH tester, etc.. (larry land)
  Re: stepping-up starters ("Alan Meeker")
  Gravity ("Paul Niebergall")
  Beer over Miami? ("John Elsworth")
  crow (MVachow)
  Plato conversion (Spencer W Thomas)
  Stella Artois ("Rob")
  Czech Pilseners (Teutonic Brewer)
  cranberries ("Sean Richens")


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

* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one 
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.


Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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!

Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"

Back issues are available via:

  HTML from...
        http://hbd.org
  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

COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org 
  (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be 
  reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless 
  EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
  CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
  unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
  author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
  reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the 
  author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
  any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
  appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
  above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
  commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
  newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
  attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)

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


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


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:27:35 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Refractometer

Rich Sieben asks about refractometers.  I have a hand-held refractometer
that is not temperature compensating.  I use it mainly for checking the
sugar content of grapes from my vineyard as they near ripeness.  The
instructions say that for accurate readings the sample and prism
temperatures should be the same.  I don't pay too much attention to this but
I do reset the instrument to zero with distilled water before each use.
This at least starts me off at zero at whatever ambient temperature I'm
working at.

I've used the refractometer during the sparge in my beermaking and I think
it works quite well.  A set of data is given below for SG readings taken
from a recent batch. 

Time    RI      RI      NRH
        Hot     60F     60F
zero    1.101   1.096   1.093
13 min  1.102   1.096   1.093
22 min  1.067   1.065   1.063
32 min  1.041   1.037   1.037
42 min  1.018   1.017   1.017
52 min  1.009   1.009   1.008
Stop sparge and mix well
mixed   1.053   1.052   1.053

RI- refers to refractive index.
Hot-A drop of each sample was tested with the refractometer before cooling.
The sparge was around 170F but the small amount of sample probably cooled
rapidly.
60F-Each sample was cooled to 60F and was tested again with the
refractometer and also with a narrow-range hydrometer

I believe the data show that a refractometer can be used to cut off the
sparge at a predetermined SG.  The refractometer is so easy and fast to use
that you could follow the SG minute-by-minute if you wanted to.  I've been
cutting the sparge off at about SG 1.015.  By this time the runnings are
quite pale and devoid of sweetness so I'm not missing much extract.

There are many Brix or Plato to SG conversion formulas floating around.
I've been using a formula given by William Secor...

        SG = 259 / [259 - P]

The SG numbers match up quite well with a conversion chart provided by the
place I bought the refractometer and also with data given in Greg Noonan's
brewing books which I refer to frequently.

        Bill Frazier
        Johnson County, Kansas



  




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:28:29 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com>
Subject: NA Beer

RJ asks about LA/NA brewing:

> I suspect that in addition to brewing a high dextrin wort that I'd
> either have to have a special yeast that could assimilate some sugars in
> a cold respiration mode into some CO2 and some flavor compounds... Or, I
> could brew & ferment a standard beer and then heat it to ~160F before
> force carbonating to evaporate the alcohol.
> 
> If anyone has had any experience making beers as such, I'd be interested
> to hear from you.

I have made beers as such.  Please see my web page (URL below) for an
article on this subject.

- --
*****

Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:15:23 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Low/No alcohol beer

RJ asks about making a low or no alcohol all-grain beer.  I looked into this
subject last winter.  If the archives are up again there is a lot of info
there on the subject.  If not go back to Home Brew Digests on about February
17, 18 or 19th and pick up on a thread about the subject of removing alcohol
from beer.

Once, when on vacation in Koblenz, Germany I had the pleasure of drinking
quite a few dark Malz Biers.  I told my wife that I could really drink these
German beers without any noticable effect only to find out later that Malz
Bier contains no alcohol.  Regardless, that beer was good.  It was malty,
sort of sweet, dark and had a great head.  Last spring while in Holland I
again tried some Malz Bier but, alas, the beer was just like American NA beer.

I asked Siebel about German Malz Biers last spring and Joe Power was nice
enough to answer.  Joe says traditional German Ludwig's beer, going back to
the nineteenth century, was made by fermenting wort with Ludwig's yeast
(Saccharomycodes ludwigii).  This yeast cannot ferment maltose so it
produces low levels of alcohol.  For a 10 to 12 Plato wort the alcohol would
be under 2% w/w.  Joe says beers fermented by this yeast taste pretty good
albiet somewhat sweet.

I asked Wyeast if they could provide this yeast.  They can but initial costs
would be around $200.  As I understand it they would maintain the yeast and
you could place an order for it through your homebrew shop as usual.  I'm
interested in trying this out but the initial cost is pretty steep.  If one
or more homebrewers would like to try it perhaps a Ludwig's yeast consortium
could be formed.  If anyone is interested let me know.

RJ...This might not solve your diabetic friend's problem since maltose would
be left over in the beer and that's probably a no-no for his/her diet.

        Bill Frazier
        Johnson County, Kansas




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:11:25 -0400
From: "Scholz, Richard" <RScholz at refco.com>
Subject: Re: Sankey


 Jeff responded to Phil Sides remarks on Sankey kegs

>I like Sankeys for several reasons, and Corneys for others. For a 5, 10 or
15 gallon batch, I wouldn't use Sankeys, but they work for me. I have a
three vessel RIMS made of 10 gallon aluminum stock pots, so my brew length
is 1/4 bbl...... 

He goes on to explain the process on removing, cleaning and replacing the
Sankey value assembly. I have a 1/4bbl Sankey keg and I found an easier way.
I got a replacement retaining clip from Kegman ( no affil, etc.) This gadget
makes opening and closing Sankeys almost as easy as flipping the lid clip on
a corny. Check out:

http://www.ceisites.com/kegman/keg_kit.htm
<http://www.ceisites.com/kegman/keg_kit.htm>  

for this and other keg parts.
- ---
Richard L Scholz
Bklyn, NY


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:30:59 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: starter rates

Kyle:

Your starter methods are fine, although I think the last step is
superfluous.  If you have 3200mL of actively fermenting starter
and pitch in 19.8L, you'll have a 6.2X step-up--well within an
acceptable range.

I treat my yeast a bit differently.  For ales I do a 10X step-up
[50mL smack pack to 500mL to 2000L (note the smaller volume step)
to the carboy].  I let the 2L starter ferment out completely in a
gallon jug and let the yeast settle.  On brew day I take the jug
out of the fridge, decant off the liquid, and add a pint of
canned wort.  By the time I have the beer cool and in the carboy,
the yeast is kicking butt and ready for a big meal.

For lagers the approach is a bit different.  I do the first
step-up the same (smack pack to 500mL).  However, instead of
taking another three steps I pitch the 500mL starter into
2gallons of wort (in a 3 gallon carboy).  Basically, I prepare an
extract-based beer of a style that (1) I don't like to drink a
lot of, or (2) I never tried before.  I let this beer ferment for
10 days at the temperature I plan to ferment the "real" lager,
then rack the rest of the "starter beer" into a 3 gallon keg and
let naturally carbonate.  When the "real" beer wort is at the
proper temperature, I pitch the sludge of the other beer in its
entirety.  Fermentation starts off like a rocket.

If you're a fan of Wyeast, I highly recommend that you try the
WyeastXL packs.  They have a volume of 175mL and, while the pack
says no starter is necessary, I find that you only need to do one
step-up to get acceptable results.  I usually use these when I'm
too lazy or busy to do the full yeast program described above.
(no affiliation, blah, blah, blah)

As an aside, the best thing I ever did for my yeast was to buy a
pressure canner.  Twice a year I'll make a 10 gallon batch of
pale ale.  Seven gallons goes to the fermenter and three gallons
goes to quart jars and is pressure canned.  I always have sterile
wort sitting around for yeast ranching or, in a pinch,
krausening.

Cheers!
Marc
"Huisbrouwerij Zuytdam"

 -I think I read in the HBD archives that Steve A. 4X was correct
for lagers,
and 8X for ales?

 -Morkey Owings likes to go with 6X.

If I go with Steve A., and my final starter volume is 6L, then
the 4X
schedule would be:

 -smack pack 50 ml
4 X 50ml = 200 ml for next step
4 X 200 ml = 800 ml for next step
4 X 800 ml = 3200 ml for next step
last step at the target volume of 6L

It is time for the HBD to weigh in on this matter, what say yea
all?

Kyle
Bakersfield, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:53:56 -0500
From: larry land <lland at startext.net>
Subject: pH tester, etc..

I am planning an attempt of sparkling Cyser.
I believe I have a target pH, but would like to know if anyone has a
favorite method / device for testing pH. (economically, please)

Also, I have read that there is a ceiling for alcohol by volume levels
on sparkling (champagne)  wines of about 12%.  I would like to find a
reason why. [ I was planning about 15% or so...]
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. Emails OK.





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:22:27 -0400
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: stepping-up starters

Kyle asks about stepping up yeast:

> -In BT this year it was published that you don't want to step up more than
> 10X the current starter volume...  -I think I read in the HBD archives
that
>Steve A. 4X was correct for lagers, and 8X for ales?... -Morkey Owings
>likes to go with 6X....
                           -----------------------------------
I don't see any reason for there to be a limit on the dilution of yeast
cells you
can perform in stepping up the yeast. Whether you do a 4X, 8X, 10X, or even
a 100X step up it will not affect the growth rate of the individual yeast
cells thus
the population as a whole will increase at the same rate in any of these
cases
(it will take you the same amount of time to get your desired yeast numbers
regardless of the dilutions or number of steps involved). What is their
rationalle
for limiting the dilutions in your steps?

I would argue that you are actually WORSE OFF limiting yourself in this way,
because it forces you to go through multiple step-ups such as the scheme you
outline below and this only increases your chances of contaminating your
starter
as at each step the starter is vulnerable to infection by microbes.

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

>  -smack pack 50 ml
> 4 X 50ml = 200 ml for next step
> 4 X 200 ml = 800 ml for next step
> 4 X 800 ml = 3200 ml for next step
> last step at the target volume of 6L

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

My advice to you is to decrease the number of steps to a bare minimum.
Ideally, this would mean going right from your 50 ml smack pack to
whatever starter volume you are shooting for. Here, it looks like you
have stepped up 50 ml to a total of 6000 ml. If you have a container big
enough you can do it all in just one step to the 6 liters.

Many people can't handle growing up this volume of yeast starter all
at one time because they don't have a big enough container or the
container is big enough, but the geometry would limit proper aeration
(high volume to surface area ratio for instance although, you can get
around this problem by using some sort of aeration system or a magnetic
stirrer). In this case you will  have to grow up the starter either in
stages
(steps) using smaller volumes which all total to the desired final volume
or  the entire volume culture can be split up into smaller containers that
can then be grown simultaneously in parallel and later pooled.

 -Alan Meeker
Baltimore



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:14:42 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject:  Gravity

patrick has some questions about Specific Gravity (SG):

>anyway, after finishing the sparge I measured the gravity of the
>~12-13 gal of sweet liquor to be 1.052.
>unfortunately, after everything was over and the wort was in the two
>primaries, I did not have a sterile pipette for measuring the O.G. so
>I just skipped that part. now i'm trying to back calculate the O.G.

>here's the question: is the relationship between volume and density
>(specific gravity, actually) linear? i'm fairly certain it is since

Ignoring temperature changes and assuming you have not done anything to 
change the density of the liquid, the SG of a liquid is a constant and is 
independent of the volume measured.  If however, you reduce the volume of 
the liquid (through evaporation during boiling, for instance) you will 
increase the SG of the remaining liquid.  If you then dilute the liquid by 
adding water (like topping off your fermentor) the SG will decrease.

>we're just measuring the mass per volume. if the volume is decreased
>by a factor of 1.2 while the mass of solute remains constant, the
>density should increase by 1.2 as well, until the point where such a
>system no longer shows a linear relationship.

>it doesn't make any sense to multiply 1.052 * 1.2 since the result is
>clearly too large. however, if I subtract the contribution of the
>water (1.000) to the density and multiply the 0.052 by 1.2, the result
>is reasonable (1.062).

Density is the mass per unit volume.  SG is the ratio of the liquids 
density to the density of water.    What the 1.052 figure tells you is 
that if you have a given volume of wort it will weigh 1.052 times an equal 
volume of water.  That is why multiplying 1.052 * 1.2 does not work to get 
the SG of the diluted wort.

Anyway, enough of the science.  The easiest way that I have found to think 
about SG when brewing beer is to use what I call "beer mass units" (BMU).  
This is not a real technical term, but here is how it works.  If you 
measure the SG of your pre-boiled wort and it is 1.052, subtract 1, and 
think of that as .052 "BMUs" .  As long as you dont add additional sugar 
or extract to your wort, the amount of BMUs remains constant and will not 
change no matter how much you boil off from your kettle or top off in your 
fermentor.  You will always have .052 BMU's (I call this the "First Law of 
Conservation of BMUs").  To get the SG of the final wort, all you have to 
do is divide the original wort volume (the that you measured the SG in the 
first place) by the final volume of wort, multiply this ratio by your 
BMUs, and add 1.  Example:

Original wort SG = 1.052
BMUs = .052
Original Wort Volume = 12 gallons
Final Wort Volume = 10 gallons 

Final SG = (12/10 * 0.052) + 1
Final SG = 1.062

Which is exactly what you did.

>none the less, reasonable does not equal correct.

What you have done is both reasonable and correct.

Hope this helps

Paul Niebergall
Burns & McDonnell
pnieb at burnsmcd.com
"Illegitimis non carborundum"

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:06:10 PDT
From: "John Elsworth" <elsworth at hotmail.com>
Subject: Beer over Miami?

Greetings all (or is that y'all?),

I will be going to Miami Beach for business in a week and would like to ask 
the collective if anyone knows a good watering hole there.  My interests 
lean towards English ales and the like, but any good beer is better than the 
usual bar swill (read "Bud").

TIA

John Elsworth

______________________________________________________


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:07:07 -0500
From: MVachow at newman.k12.la.us
Subject: crow

	Gee, I thought I was eating crow in agreeing that my extra-fridge
synonymous-with-kegging statement was in fact a momily.  Hell, I'm all for
using 3 gallon kegs if they fit your bill. As a bachelor, I think that
cheese and beer were the only two food groups to be found in the fridge
anyway.  As far as expense goes, I wouldn't pay $75 bucks for a keg either
(except maybe for one of those 10 gallon jobs I've been lusting after), but
the cheapest place I know to get kegs short of scrounging them, namely RCB
Fermentation Equipment, sells  3 gallons kegs for $35; 5 gallon ball locks
go for $12--go figure.  Baching it, newly married, empty nesting?  Sure, you
probably have enough extra room in your fridge for a 3 gallon keg.  Married
with kids?  Well now, a keg in the family fridge will likely have to go the
way of the sporty little coupe you used to own.  See, that's the thing with
homebrewing.  People get passionate enough about it that they can sometimes
lose sight of practical costs.  Sure, you can say that you can build a 3
tier RIMS set up for $100 (dare we call such statements a "blithily?") but
don't forget to mention that you spent three months and four tanks of gas
mooching around salvage yards, a month's worth of night classes at the JC
learning how to TIG weld, and in the process burnt down the garage and
incensed your SO past the bounds of conscience.  I'm a self-appointed gadfly
for truth in accounting; that's my hobbyhorse, and I'm riding it (and mixing
metaphors) just as hard as one kinky little sub-sect among us are riding
their mini-kegs.

Mike


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:19:35 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Plato conversion

>>>>> "Philip" == Philip J Wilcox <pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com> writes:

    Philip> For example 16 Plato is 1.065....There is
    Philip> an equation out there somewhere for a more exact
    Philip> conversion. 

Go to http://realbeer.com/spencer/attenuation.html and use the
online calculator.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:18:11 -0500
From: "Rob" <vidhead at camalott.com>
Subject: Stella Artois  

Help! I need a recipe for Stella Artois. Brother-in-law's favorite beer. I
would like to make it for him for Christmas.  Full grain recipe would be
great. Or if anyone knows the hops. I'm pretty sure it is Maris Otter they
are using, and I am sure there is some candy sugar in there too. It has been
too long of a time to remember what it tasted like. Thanks in advance.

Rob

Brew Masters
1166 Butternut
Abilene, TX 79602
1-915-677-1233
savebig at texasbrew.com

www.texasbrew.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:47:39 -0600
From: Teutonic Brewer <claassen at swcp.com>
Subject: Czech Pilseners

John Thomasson wrote:

>9# Czech Moravian Pilsner malt 
>Decoction mash: 
>20'  at  140F 
>90'  at  154F 
>10'  at  168F 

I suspect that the Moravian Pilsener malt is fully modified just like the
German stuff, in which case decoction mashing will overprocess the malt,
resulting in less body and malt flavor (despite the melanoidization in the
decocts).  If it is undermodified, i.e. the Kolbach index is significantly
less than 40, then decoction mashing is warranted.  Anybody know the
modification of the Czech malt currently available in the US?

I like the step mash recommended by Fix in AOBT: 40C/15 minutes - 60C/15
minutes - 70C/20 minutes.  I generally bump the 70C up to about 72C.  A
recent Helles of mine that used this schedule started at 1.048 and finished
at 1.016.  Change the malt bill to 8# Pils, 12 ounces Vienna and 4 ounces
20L crystal to account for the lack of decocts.

If you insist on decocting, then mash in at 40C.  Step directly up to 60C
(no protein rest) and immediately pull a large, thick decoct.  Saccharify
the decoct at 70C-72C for 10 minutes, then boil for 10 minutes and mix back
into the rest mash.  Try to hit 70C-72C after the decoct is mixed back in
so the mash quickly bypasses the 65-68C range.  You may end up with a
slightly lighter body than 1.015 with this because the rest mash will
almost completely saccharify at 60C while the decoct is being handled.  The
real Pilsener Urquell has rests at 63C and 72C if I remember correctly
(gotta dig out that old issue of BT...), but the 63C rest comes after two
decocts have decimated the enzyme population, thereby significantly slowing
the rate of saccharification of the rest mash at that step.

>70 minute boil: 
>2 oz 3.9% AA Czech Saaz - FWH 
>1 oz 3.9% AA Czech Saaz - 30' 
>1 oz 3.9% AA Czech Saaz - 10' 

Try changing the 30' and 10' additions to 1 ounce at T-20' and 2 ounces at
T-0'.  Whole or plug Saazer is much preferred to pellet for the flavor and
aroma additions since pelletization is bit rough on the delicate oils.

>4. This will also be my first time to use 2278.

I use 2124 Bohemian which, I believe, is derived from the Weihenstefan
maintained strain equivalent to 2278 Czech.  Fermentation is right at
9-10C.  I find that the diacetyl rest depends a lot on the size of the
starter I use; a larger starter reduces the need for or the duration of the
diacetyl rest.  Watch your yeast performance toward the end of the
fermentation; if it gets sluggish, bump the temperature up.  It helps to
have force fermented a small portion of your wort with lots of yeast to
know the terminal attenuation of your wort.  And, yes, 2124 and 2278 fart a
lot when they like their food source.

>5. My water is very hard and high in carbonate.

Slaked lime will knock out the carbonate (my usual water treatment is
50mg/l Ca++ from CaCl2 plus the slaked lime).  The resultant water may be
used as is or diluted with distilled.  Doping 100% distilled water with
salts risks not having enough trace minerals for proper yeast nutrition
(been there, done that, not good); this is doubly risky if the yeast
starter is not sufficiently large since the yeast must multiply more times
over.

Regards,
Paul Claassen (Teutonic Brewer) (recovering decoction mashing addict)
Albuquerque, Chile Republic of New Mexico


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:55:56 -0500
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca>
Subject: cranberries

Jim Liddle writes:

As a note, cranberries have a great deal of natural pectin and the heating
can lead to excessive gel formation.  I prefer to add fruit to the
secondary and let the berries release their flavor their.  Ken Schramm and
Dan McConnell did an excellent presentation at the NO AHA conference and
the results were clear cut that the place to add fruit (or vegetables) is
in the Secondary.  As a note, the rhubarb beer was great and I think this
would be a really good choice for plambic.  Also I prefer to run my fruit
through a Moule' so that it is really pureed.

 ...and I have a follow-up question:

The worst I get with adding cranberries (loads and loads of them) at the
have an alternative at the liquor store tend not to complain.  I can't
decide if the haze nicely brings out the red colour or detracts from the
beer.

I add them at this stage because I want the carbonic maceration effect. 
Does this happen just as well in secondary?  I could see losing less aroma
in secondary because of the reduced scrubbing.  I also don't have a
secondary system that lends itself to fruit addition.  I don't have any
lids for pails, and since I usually make 6 US gallon batches right through
(and use Wyeast 1007 so I'm scraping crap off my floor after no matter how
much headspace I leave) I have avoided this.  Any good systems for
performing secondary with fruit much appreciated because it's the week
after Canadian Thanksgiving and cranberries are cheap right now.

Ta.

Sean


Return to table of contents

---