---

	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:
  Aylesbury Brewery ("Matt Hollingsworth")
  Drunken stupors vs stupid drunks (Some Guy)
  cold rooms (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Aussie Nonsense Or Scientific Thirsting? ("Phil & Jill Yates")
  Fullers Hopping Schedules (Sean Macleod)
  To be an Aussie, fungal beer ("Graham Sanders")
  RE: Wyeast Belgian Ardennes (Rob Hanson and Kate Keplinger)
  Last post on removing labels? Lazy version (Rob Hanson and Kate Keplinger)
  Brad's question on mash temps ("Alan Meeker")
  Wyeast Ardennes yeast ("Gordon Strong")
  How to create multiple hot breaks and are they good or bad? ("Peter J. Calinski")
  Re: Quick-Drafting Bottles? (Jeff Renner)
  RE: Quick-Drafting Bottles? (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes / Malt Liquor / Drunks (David Harsh)
  Bombs Away ("Paul Niebergall")
  Sorbate/Cider Myth ("Lynne O'Connor")
  Can't we all just get along? ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  Dave is not a Bruce! ("Brian Lundeen")
  BJCP Malt Liquor Style ("Houseman, David L")
  Judging ("Paul Carmichael")
  Re: Amylase Functionality ("John Palmer")
  Technology Brewing and Malting ("Charles Beaver")
  Clean Beer Glasses (Scott Perfect)
  gelatinization again... (Joseph Uknalis)
  Gelatinizatrion and Low T mashes, beer bums and linguistic (Dave Burley)
  Question:High gravity dilution(again) (Rick Pauly)


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



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 FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req at hbd.org.

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



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


Date: 1 Aug 2000 12:59:52 -0700
From: "Matt Hollingsworth" <colorart at spiritone.com>
Subject: Aylesbury Brewery

Hello!

A friend of mine just gave me what is, presumably, a beer jug.  It looks to
be just over a gallon in size, probably a British gallon.  It's ceramic and
has lettering on it that reads:

"The Aylesbury Brewery Compy Ltd  Newport Pagnell"  it also has a "592"
written in the midst of this lettering and an "NP" off to the side.  I
assume the NP is an abbreviation of Newport Pagnell.

I tried to do some research on the web, but haven't had much luck.  From
what I found, though, it seems Newport Pagnell is a city or region in
Britain.  So, I tried to see if this brewery was listed with CAMRA and
couldn't find anything.

So, I'm wodnering if anyone knows exactly what this thing is?  It seems to
be for holding beer, but which style and from what time period?  Is it
merely a souvenir or genuine?  Is the Aylesbury Brewery Company still around
or are they defunct?

I'm curious as to the history of this jug if there is one, and any info
about the brewery itself/

Anyone with info can either post it or e-mail me directly.  Any help, even
just to point me in the direction of an information resource would be
greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

 -Matt Hollingsworth


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:11:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: Drunken stupors vs stupid drunks

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

On wonderment: you'd have to understand my life. The capacity for
wonderment expands with the learning aquired from certain events. Mine is
almost limitless.

On Skippy: Don't go there. He was a guy in college accused once of being
able to screw a Cheerio without breaking it. I resent the association. I'd
at least wear it a bit around the edges. (Or maybe that was
Skooter. In any case...) Besides: I'm my own evil twin.

On getting drunk: Been there. Done that. Not a constant state of being -
can't stand the feeling. Wouldn't want to live there. Neither would my
liver. But, for Bruzillas-come-lately, there's a subtle difference
between getting drunk and being a drunk...

On hyperbole: It isn't. I believe my point was very succinctly stated in
that paragraph. If *YOU* can't demonstrate that you can responsibly enjoy
alcohol, then you cannot reasonably expect your children to. After all,
they learn the majority of their morality lessons in the home. At least
they used to. And again, "not hiding from your children" is better handled
in letting them sample what you're drinking (Oh, no! Not THAT thread
again!) and then letting them notice that you do not proceed on to
oblivion. My opinion. And I do have children. And this is how my parents
handled the upbringing of me and my five siblings. And none of us are
drunks, unemployed (or unemployable) nor in prison. I'll take my lessons
from that experience, thankyouverymuch. You can take yours from Steve if
you prefer.

On educating the public: Hear! Hear! Agreed. That and in all of our
"achievements" as home brewers, we never broke the association with
bathtub gin and exploding bottles. I cannot count how many times I've been
asked. "Oh! You do that in the bathtub?" (ABOUT BREWING, PHIL! Don't let
your mind wander...)

I've said my piece, and there'll likely be some other strange tangents
taken from those things I've said. (Again, not sure where Steve pulled the
prohibitionist angle from. Maybe he started paying attention
midstream.) Support the "cause" if you like - or not! Again: as you
like. But only expect me to call you a drunk if you are one. NOT because
you're a home brewer. Pay me the same courtesy, please...


- -- 
 -
See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at hbd.org
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page                 http://hbd.org/pbabcock

"The monster's back, isn't it?" - Kim Babcock after I emerged
                                  from my yeast lab Saturday








Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:40:19 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at stanford.edu>
Subject: cold rooms

Thanks to all for helpful info about cold room building, especially Forrest!
In addition to what appeared here on the HBD I received helpful replies from
Ray Kruse, Steve Smith, c.d. pritchard, and mike davis.

In addition to Forrest's info, the best place to look is Scott's page
(http://www.brewrats.org/walkin.cfm) (which I had seen before but couldn't
find).  Other tidbits:

 -Check out the ASHRE handbook for all kinds of info regarding insulation,
cooling capacities, etc.
 -Plan to deal with moisture inside
 -Another interior wall surface suggestion was, "The biggest bangs/buck in
these parts is 4'x8' sheets of the hardboard paneling stuff that has a
pre-finished tile like surface.  It's washable and water resistant.  Fasten
to studs with stainless sheet metal screws (and maybe Liquid Nails also) and
seal all joints with silicone sealant."  I still like the wonderboard idea
except that Forrest's idea of a room that can be disassembled is starting to
appeal to me since I will only be living in my new home 4-5 years.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:58:06 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au>
Subject: Aussie Nonsense Or Scientific Thirsting?

I am a little bit upset about off handed comments from Jim Bentson, and just
when I was making scientific head way!

I wonder when it was the last time Jim Bentson sat in a bathysphere and
contemplated CO2. Not very recently I'll bet!

Jeff Renner got it nearly all right with his answer. Except for his
assumption about my very large life insurance policy. I don't have one. I'm
not that silly Jeff.
But congratulations on your excellent pressure knowledge.

Moving along, what do we know about carbonation measurement? I must admit it
took me awhile to get a handle on the concept of volumes of CO2. Not even
sure if I have the right handle on it. Perhaps someone can help.

When we say our beer is carbonated to, let's say, two volumes of CO2, what
do we mean?
I had some trouble trying to picture this as the volume of a gas will vary
with temperature and pressure. I had visions of a very elastic balloon of
CO2 and couldn't grasp any fixed volume that might be being talked about.
Further more, what are we relating the volume to?
What are two volumes if I don't even know what one volume is?

What I think we are talking about is this.
At a given pressure and temperature a liquid (in our case beer) can absorb a
certain amount of CO2 relative to its own volume. That is to say, the volume
of the CO2 at the fixed temp and pressure can be measured relative to the
volume of the beer into which it is absorbed. I think I just said that
twice! Never mind.
>From this brilliant deduction, a chart can be drawn up listing various
pressure and temperature combinations at which volumes of CO2 are absorbed
into the beer.

Two volumes of CO2 ie twice the volume of the beer is absorbed into the beer
when applied under a certain pressure at a fixed temperature. If the
pressure is increased then the temperature must also be increased to
maintain the constant absorbed volumes. If the pressure is lowered, the temp
must also be lowered.

Well I think that is what we are talking about. I could be way off the mark!
Of course, when the lid comes off the beer, out comes the CO2, depending on
pressure variables (and temperature for that matter).
Wes and I found this out when we cracked a frosty in the vacuumated
bathysphere. Man, what a head!!

Now listen Mr Bentson, I'm going to give you an option. Either I'm going to
be allowed to go back to drinking beers on the verandah and writing
outrageous posts, or I'm going to pursue my scientific career. There's
plenty more where this came from. You decide what you prefer.

Just quietly, my Doctor advised Jill I should never have been taken off my
medication!

Cheers
Phil








Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 14:14:04 +0800
From: Sean Macleod <sean at bankwest.com.au>
Subject: Fullers Hopping Schedules

Hello All,

I am looking to make some beers similar to Fullers
I currently brew using extract and specialty grains
I am interested in trying to emulate their hopping schedule.

here is what I have determined from their website

Chiswick Bitter
Hops: Northdown, Challenger

London Pride:
Hops: Target, Northdown, Challenger

Fuller's ESB
Hops: Target, Northdown, Challenger, EK Goldings

I have bought pellets of all the above varieties from Regan at ESB 

(www.esb.net.au)

I normally use three hop additions (60, 15, 0) during the boil and
dry-hop the
secondary.

does anyone know roughly when Fullers add the hops mentioned above ?

I am planning to use the following additions (amounts will be adjusted
to
fit my recipe)

Chiswick Bitter
60: Northdown
15: Challenger
0:  Challenger

London Pride
60: Target
15: Northdown
0:  Challenger

ESB

60: Target, Northdown
15: Northdown, Challenger
0:  Goldings
dry: Goldings

anyone who has more detailed information about this I would be happy to 
share:

I generally make up my fermentables from 
M&F Spray Malt DME
Generic (New Zealand) LME
Light Brown Sugar
60L Crystal

Safale S-04 dry yeast

all comments greatly appreciated

Anyone have any experience using Bramling Cross ?

I am planning to use this in my next robust porter

Sean


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:22:05 +1000
From: "Graham Sanders" <craftbrewer at cisnet.COM.AU>
Subject: To be an Aussie, fungal beer

G'day all

Gave some serious thought (for a change) to a posting but before that

>From: "Leland Heaton"

Graham, Phil, Jill, Keith, Lyndon, etc...Can I be an Aussie? :).. <

Well i suspose its possible, but you'll have to talk to those wousers down
south about that.  We all know that we up here in North Queensland succeed
long ago.  Now to be a true North Queenslander, thats just bloody hard (but
not impossible).  It takes a knowledge of physics (understanding the the
physics of suction when a genital grabbing frog latched on, and the ability
to remove it and nothing else), biology (so you can avoid those tourist
seeking salties and taipans, and understand how to make a good chunder),
chemistry (well I hope you are going to brew here, and to deliver the
perfect chunder), tact (how else can you convince SWMBO that she still is
the only one after the frog has its way), social skills (those many awards
that are available, did I mention the chunder) and of course a healthy
disrepect for all things law obiding (that should cover the rest).  After
that we can then really start educating you into the finer points of our
culture.

For instance, WHERE"S MY BLOODY CARTON. Putting my name first doesn't cut it
mate, you wont get your passort that way.

Anyway before Pat has his way

From: John Baxter Biggins <jbbiggin at med.cornell.edu>
Subject: Anyone ever do a "beer" by using the methods for sake???

My question:  has anyone tried to brew a
"beer"-like sake, that is, instead of rice use non-malted barley w/
pseudo-normal hopping schedules & yeast to make a "pale" or non-malted
wheat to make a "weizen"?  I expect certain sake-like components from the
sugar conversion by the fungus to remain, but I am just curious if anyone
has ever tried doing such
>>>>>>>>

Now I must admit this has been spinning arround in the old brian box for
some time.  I originally thought of using the fungus on some old feed barley
and corn, throw in some yeast, let her rip, and use the "beer" in my modest
still. Put it this way, beats doing a mash, and looked an easy way to get
some grain spirits.

But lets look at this in a touch more detail.  For those that dont know, the
process would work like this.  You have raw grain, add water and a special
fungus.  The fungus grows on and in the grain, secrets enzymes (slowly) that
convert the starch to sugar.  The fungus feeds off the sugars and grows
more.  Now add yeast.  As the fungus makes the sugar, (or more inportantly
the enzymes do) the yeast uses the sugars at a much much faster rate than
the fungus, bonzer fermentation (couldn't help that word slipping in).  This
method of conversion and fermentation (wait for the arguments to come)
results in the ability of getting a brew up to 20% alcohol if done right.

Now back to the question, can we make a beer this way.  Well what cant we
do.  We obviously cant get a hot and cold break, or much hop conversion.
Boiling is out of the question.  So we wont get a clear beer.  But we could
brew a beer to 16% v/v or higher (now thats a barley wine) but thats not
good cause you can't compare it to anything arround.

But there would be beers we could compare it to.  Cloudy, low hopped beer
made out of raw grains.  Well Wits and Weissen (if you ignore that purity
law) come to mind.  So what could one do. Well to me it would go like this.
(will have to work out volumes after the Rugby finals are over)

1. Soak a given quality of Barley and Wheat overnight.
2. Boil said for 15- 20 minutes and add hops (and anything else). (or use
iso-hops, hop oils or essenses), This sterilises, or is that sanitises, the
mix as well.
3. Strain and cool in sealed fermenter.
4. Add Spores of fungus.
5. after 3 days add messured volume of water to desired alcohol level and
yeast
6.Come back when its all finished.

There will be no krausen, the fermentation will be just slow and  steady.

Then bottle and compare the two.

Any thoughts?  Might even give it a try this summer, (thats
January-February) and compare it to one of my regular wheat beers.

Oh by the way, you shouldn't keep fungus and yeast arround the house with
out bulk orders of antibiotic creams.  Every time SWMBO gets thrush, guess
who gets blamed for it.

Shout

Graham Sanders





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:17:51 -0400
From: Rob Hanson and Kate Keplinger <katerob at erols.com>
Subject: RE: Wyeast Belgian Ardennes

In HBD #3393, Warren White inquired about Wyeast Belgian Ardennes
(#3522).  I've made a couple of good dubbels with this yeast.

  Last Columbus Day (October), my homebrew club and I visited Brewery
Ommegang, and shared some of our beers with the Brewmaster, Randy Theil,
who was *extremely* generous with his time and advice. I gave him the
first of the extract and grain dubbels I made with the Belgian Ardennes
yeast, and he thought it had a great yeast character, quite flavorful
and spicy.

  The one improvement he suggested was boosting the alcohol level, as
there was little of the warmth of alcohol to that first attempt.  In a
second attempt, I ended up with a really strong, heavy beer which is
more like a Belgian Imperial Stout, if you can imagine.  If I were to
try it again (and I will), I would use more candy sugar rather than
adding more malt extract (which is what I did the second time) -- I'm
thinking that would keep the body light but give a bit more of an
alcohol presence without masking the fantastic yeast flavors.

Good luck with the trippel!

- --Rob Hanson
the Closet Brewery
'post tenebras lux'
Washington, DC





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:31:29 -0400
From: Rob Hanson and Kate Keplinger <katerob at erols.com>
Subject: Last post on removing labels? Lazy version

Just catching up on my HDB... a while back, DeVeaux Gauger asked about
removing labels, and while I thought someone else must use the method
below, no one posted it. So I thought I'd give you another option.

  Take a gallon-size zip-lock bag (or any bag you can close tightly with
some bottles in it), wrap up to three (or however many you can fit)
bottles in one damp paper towel per bottle and seal or close the bag.
Wait 12-24 hours (brew some more beer, drink some more beer), then
unwrap the bottles.  The labels just slip off (95% of them, anyway), and
if you collect labels like I do, you can press the intact label between
blotter corrugated cardboard, and keep for your scrapbook.  You can use
the towels over and over.  Watch out for that amonia smell when you open
the bag...

  Question:  Can any of you brew-inventers think of a way to attach
(unflattened) bottle caps to an item of clothing (a hat, a vest) without
piercing the top of the cap?  In addition to the labels, I've got a
collection of great bottle caps with cool logos on them, that I'd like
to adorn some brew-gear with.  Any advice welcome.


- --Rob Hanson
the Closet Brewery
'post tenebras lux'
Washington, DC

- ----

"...They have worked their will on John Barleycorn
But he lived to tell the tale,
For they pour him out of an old brown jug
And they call him home brewed ale."



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:42:26 -0400
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: Brad's question on mash temps

Brad asks,

>I hope this makes more sense now.  Let me reiterate:  How is
>it that a lower temp rest (145) can be too useful if the substrates
>for it are from a reaction of a higher temp?  (Yes I know that there
>is still some activity at lower temps)

I think there are three relevant points here. First, the "some activity" of
alpha amylase is actually a significant amount, and the time_ spent at the
lower temperature will have an effect as well (longer incubation time can
make up for the lower activity level). Second, Beta can actually go quite a
long way in starch degradation by itself provided (as Dave alluded to I
believe) that the starch has been well gelatinized. Third, your proposed
scheme of going to high temps first to allow alpha action, then cooling to
the beta range will likely be thwarted by the fact that much of the beta
will _irreversibly_ denature at the higher temps and thus be unable to act
in the second phase.

Hope this helps

 -Alan Meeker




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:23:11 -0400
From: "Gordon Strong" <strongg at earthlink.net>
Subject: Wyeast Ardennes yeast

Warren White asks in HBD #3393 about Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes yeast.
I've got a new "shampoo tube" of it and intend to use it this weekend in a
dubbel (see my recipe and comments in the Jan/Feb 2000 issue of Zymurgy).  I
usually use Wyeast 3787 and want to see what differences can be noted.  I
also was intrigued by the recent summer brewing issue of Zymurgy that said
this yeast could tolerate temperatures as high as 85F.  I probably won't go
above the low-mid 70s but at least I won't worry about cooling techniques.

At the AHA NHC convention in Livonia this year, I asked Dave Logsdon of
Wyeast about this strain.  He said it came from Achouffe.  When I compare my
dubbels brewed with the different yeasts, I'll also compare them with their
commercial brethren (3787: Westmalle Dubbel, 3522: La Chouffe).

Gordon Strong
Beavercreek, OH



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:52:15 -0400
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com>
Subject: How to create multiple hot breaks and are they good or bad? 

I have noticed that I can cause second, third, and I assume more hot breaks
to occur if I do something to cool the wort during the boil.  For instance,
sometimes, after the initial hot break, when the boil has been going on
quite a long time, I may add hot tap water to keep the volume above 5 Gal. 
Quite often this will result in the formation of another hot break. 
Yesterday, while boiling a wheat beer, I put the immersion chiller in the
wort after 45 minutes of boiling,  it caused the formation of about 3
inches of foam.  I originally had a good hot break at the start of the
boil.  Also, I had suspended the immersion chiller above the brew pot for a
few minutes so it was up to temperature before I put it in the pot.  In
this case, adding the chiller didn't even stop the boiling like adding tap
water sometimes does.

So my questions are:

Why does adding low temperature water or an immersion chiller cause the
foam to form.
(In the case of the immersion chiller, a layer of copper oxide comes off
each time but I don't know if that is useful information.)?

Is this beneficial of harmful?  

Should I do it every brew or should I avoid it?

Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:33:48 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Quick-Drafting Bottles?

"Steven J. Owens" <puff at netcom.com> needs to get some overcarbonated keg
beer into bottles quickly.

Actually, the overcarbonation may not be a problem, but actually a help in
achieving proper carbonation in the bottles, since you often lose a little
in bottling.  A counter-pressure filler would be best if you could borrow
one, but just filling with a hose stuck on a plastic "cobra faucet" will
work pretty well.

I would suggest chilling the beer as far down as you can go, certainly at
least fridge temp (of course, no you'll have chill haze).  This will keep
as much CO2 in solution as possible and also reduce the keg pressure.  Get
the bottles as cold as possible, too.  I put mine in the freezer.  This
keeps the beer from foaming as much when it hits the bottles.

Make sure the hose reaches the bottom of the bottle, then turn the pressure
down on the keg so the beer flows slowly and fill the bottles.  If you get
the beer to foam up into the neck so you can "cap on foam," so much the
better - less O2.

Of course, since you aren't purging the bottles with CO2 the way you would
with a cp filler, you may get some dissolved O2 in the beer, but it should
last many weeks with this technique, especially if you cap on foam.

Good luck.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:12:10 -0500 
From: rlabor at lsuhsc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Quick-Drafting Bottles?

From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff at netcom.com>

>     Two, the beer is currently in a ten gallon keg which my brother
>quick-drafted with CO2, and apparently he over-carbonated it.  So I'm
>faced with the predicament of trying to uncarbonate it so I can
>transfer it to bottles and then try to recarbonate it.
>
>     I guess I'm asking, is there any way to 
>
>a) transfer the beer from keg to bottles without giving it a chance to
>foam up, and ideally preserve some of the carbonation, or

If you get the temperature of the keg down as low as you can before
freezing, about 30F, then you release the pressure down to just 2 or 3 psi,
just enough to move the beer through your beer tap and hose.  Place a 12
inch piece of tubing into your beer tap outlet and slowly dispense into the
bottle with the vinyl hose at the bottom of the bottle. Then immediately cap
the bottle.  I do this as my regular bottling routine, it works great!

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsuhsc.edu
http://hbd.org/rlaborde



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:41:35 -0400
From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net>
Subject: Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes / Malt Liquor / Drunks

"Warren White" <warrenlw63 at hotmail.com> asks about Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes

> But unlike some of them I don't intend to waste bandwith
> with endless diatribe and useless platitudes!

Thank you very much.  The diatribes and platitudes were amusing the
first 10,000 times they were posted... 

> If so can I get some info. on its characteristics etc.
> and is it suitable for a Trippel.

I was told this is the L'Chouffe yeast by someone I consider to have a
clue.  Draw your own conclusion, but I'm brewing with it when I get the chance.
- ---------------------------
Here in Ohio, the term "Malt Liquor" is a required description for beers
above a certain alcohol level (at least it was a few years ago).  You
could actually buy Belgian ales with the term on their label.

>From a style standpoint, a typical malt liquor is an American Lager (the
word light is redundant in this application) that has had sugar added to
boost the alcohol.  The resulting Colt 45 or Olde Englishe 800e is a
someone rough concoction, but it gets you there faster.  
- -----------------------------
In the discussion of drunks and drunkeness, people are forgetting that
when we deal with public perceptions, it is an uphill battle.  Our club
meets at a restaurant.  We come in and almost everyone carries in a
cooler or a keg.  The casual observer sees lots of beer.  If every
person carries in a 6 or 12 pack cooler or a 5 gallon keg, the patron
assumes that every drop is consumed.  If ONE person is stumbling or
slurring speech, we are all painted by that brush.  It doesn't matter if
he isn't driving.

You tell someone you are having a homebrew competition with 100 kegs
(like Beer and Sweat, coming August 19th, 2000 in Cincinnati, OH - the
world's only keg-only competition see http://hbd.org/bloat for details)
and the casual listener assumes that you drink all the beer.  

I'm not promoting or condemning getting intoxicated - we just have to
admit that in the average person's eyes, being a homebrewer is
equivalent to joining the local chapter of Drunks Against Mad Mothers
and the educational process to reverse that perception is a long one.  

Dave Harsh				Bloatarian Brewing League
Cincinnati, OH

Ford: 	"Its rather like being drunk"
Arthur:	"What's wrong with being drunk?"
Ford:	"Ask a glass of water."


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:54:16 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Bombs Away

Well it happened.  15 years of beer bottling (and some bad 
fruit fly Karma) finally caught up with me.  I was tending to 
my cellar last night.  Dusting a few old bottles off and admiring 
the variety of my collection.  I carefully selected about six 
bottles for an upcoming fishing trip and placed them on the 
concrete floor of my basement right by the spare fridge.  I 
must have put one of the bottles a little too close to the 
fridge because when I opened the door, the bottle fell 
over, and KABLAM!  

My arm was on the door handle of the fridge which is a 
good three feet vertically and a few feet over from 
ground zero, yet a few pieces of glass found their way 
over and into my arm.  The glass hit my arm at a relatively 
low angle and caused long slices in my arm.  Like most 
injuries, there was a brief moment before the blood 
started to really flow.  I remember looking down and 
being able to "see" veins in my arm.  I mean really 
see them.

Anyway, an hour or so later in the emergency ward, 
I thought of the drunken home brewer thread of late.  
Try explaining to the ER staff that it wasnt a drunken 
accident when you are pretty much drenched in beer 
foam and they are busy sewing you up.  Luckily, it 
was a slow night and most of them had a sense of humor.

Paul Niebergall
(Three wounds with 6, 15, and 8 stitches, in case 
anybody was wondering and think they can outdo me)



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:03:57 -0500
From: "Lynne O'Connor" <stpats at bga.com>
Subject: Sorbate/Cider Myth

The nice discussion about sorbate points to a common myth--namely, that you
can't make hard cider from store-bought apple cider that has sorbate.  I
have on numerous occasions.  You need only pitch an active yeast 
slurry with yeast nutrient.

Lynne O'Connor
St. Patrick's of Texas Brewers Supply
512-989-9727
www.stpats.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:49:11 -0400
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com>
Subject: Can't we all just get along?

>I agree with Pat's recent comments re/ the desire to not associate
>"homebrewing" with "drunk".  "Drunk" is considered by most of the world to
>be a derogatory term.

As Todd said, "Drunk " is a derogatory term.  And in typical American
fashion , it will probably be given a new, politically-correct name to take
some of the hurt out of the old term - if enough drunks bitch about it.
Names like: the "blood alcohol content impaired", the "alcoholically
uncoordinated", "chronic intoxication sydrome".  Regardless of the name
change, they'll still be drunks under thier new skin and homebrewers will
still be associated with them by the ignorant.

As for the term "homebrewer"...  I object to this label partly because of
the association with "drunk" and also because not every thing I create is
necessarily brewed.  Therefore, I am declaring myself a "Fermented Beverage
Artist"!  But you can just call me "The Artist" because Prince doesn't like
that name anymore and he's gone back to being called Prince again.  THE
ARTIST!  I like that!

As far as indulging in my creations, I prefer to take a tip from my mentor,
Ben Franklin - all things in moderation.  Like Ben, I prefer to drink my
beer and enjoy it's flavor more so than it's inebriating effects.  I also
like to share it with my friends and take pleasure in their enjoyment of my
creations.  And once in a while I like to have a few more than usual and
just enjoy the buzz...  But I do it responsibly and in moderation.

Hey, do I just go to the Australian Consulate and fill out an application
for citizenship?  Can it be *THAT* simple to gain piece of mind?


Carpe cerevisiae!

Glen Pannicke
http://www.pannicke.net
"He was a wise man who invented beer" - Plato



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:24:27 -0500
From: "Brian Lundeen" <blundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: Dave is not a Bruce!

Dave Edwards took offense (possibly) where none was intended when he
commented:

> Also I know that I am probably regarded as a
> 'Bruce-come-lately' bloke, but
> as you may have guessed, I have strong opinions, and am not
> afraid to give
> them. I am not as elequant, and delicate with the responses I
> give (too much
> beer whilst at the computer is the usual culprit), but I try.

Dave, while I support your right to go under any title that pleases you, you
were not in my targeted group of "Bruces". I should have been more specific.

The people in question were a bunch that appeared briefly around the start
of July and contributed such eloquent comments as:

"G'Day to yas,
I too reside in Australia, South Australia, Adealide even. You could
piss from my house in Clapham to Mitcham.
Thats all"

"Yep, I'm another South Australian from Adelaide.
Unlike (name deleted) I cannot piss between two suburbs from my house.
But I can piss on the Boadview footy oval.
Well actually i can piss on the tennis courts next to the footy oval but i
felt the need to fit in by including footy in my post."

"up the eagles (AFL)
up the glory (soccer)
up the wildcats (basketball)
and up and rugby teems we have."

"Being the only young and stupid Aussie on the HBD can I request a
Cat 69?
Must be something about being in QLD and the real Aussie coming out
in me! Makes one feal very "Gimpy".
These 4 hour lunches are tough.....Ohh i love business trips...."

As I said, it appears these people did a "Veni, Vidi, Vomiti" on the HBD
then moved on, so it's not really an ongoing problem. Now, if these people
want to come back and contribute something of substance (even if it's
Category 5), great. But for now, they're the "Bruces".

You on the other hand, Dave, have made a major contribution by drawing Pat
out of his shell with the infamous Sooky Sooky La La posting. I was growing
fearful for Pat's well-being, locking himself away with the HBD server in
his underground bunker he picked up at a "Cold war going out of business"
sale, living on Rice-a-roni and his personal collection of vintage Carling
Black Labels (some dating back to 1963), and squandering the family fortune
by hiring a doppelganger by the name of Arthur Hampstead from East Grand
Forks, Minnesota to make public appearances for him for the last several
years. Now that you've gotten Pat willing to muck it up with the masses, we
can all hope that he will soon emerge from the bunker and resume his
rightful place in society.

Cheers
Brian

PS. I promise to stop all (well, a good portion,... um, maybe 30%,...
perhaps the odd one) of this silliness when we get back into serious brewing
mode come the fall.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:50:47 -0400 
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: BJCP Malt Liquor Style

Jeff Renner asks "I believe that it used to be a category in the old BJCP
style guidelines; 
however, in the new one it looks like it has been removed.  Does anyone know

why AHA/BJCP removed it?"  

Well, yes.  When the style committee convened to create the new style guide
we did so with several agreed tenets.  First we were not trying to create a
repository of all known beer styles; there are many historical and
contemporary styles, some used in the GABF or World Beer Cup, that aren't
brewed by homebrewers for homebrew competitions.  Second, we felt that the
style guide should reflect the current interests of the homebrew competition
community.  Third, it is expected that the style guide be a living document
that will change periodically (not necessarily annually) to reflect new
interests and information.  CAP is an example of a style added in the last
few years for which there is a lot of general interest in homebrew
competitions.  Finally, the purpose the style guide is to provide
homebrewers and judges a source of objective style definitions for the use
in homebrew competitions.  Since there was a good deal of effort by the
committee in reviewing, modifying, editing and supporting each style, we
felt we should drop those that don't have a base of interest in the
homebrewing competition community.  Malt Liquor was one of those styles that
none of us had even run across in our judging/organizing experience so we
dropped it as an active style.  If there were to be a revival of interest in
Malt Liquor in homebrew competitions, then it should be added back.  Until
then if one wants to brew and enter a Malt Liquor (or any style not in the
style guide) do so in the Specialty/Experimental/Historical category.   Hope
this helped in explaining the Style Guide Committee's thoughts, as best I
can remember them now.

David Houseman



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:11:14 -0400
From: "Paul Carmichael" <hoagie2 at home.com>
Subject: Judging

Would anyone be willing to give me prejudge on a beer Im entering in a
comptetion.  This will be my first and I'm just a bit curious how my beer
stands up.

Hoagi



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:30:09 -0700
From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer at gte.net>
Subject: Re: Amylase Functionality

Brad says: How is
it that a lower temp rest (145) can be too useful if the substrates
for it are from a reaction of a higher temp?  (Yes I know that there
is still some activity at lower temps)

I think there is one fundemental flaw in the discussion to date, so I
will state it outright:
Beta Amylase functionality does NOT depend on prior Alpha Amylase
activity.

It is HELPED by it, yes. Beta amylase is perfectly capable of
producing maltose from the amylose and amylopectins in the mash, with
zero help from Alpha Amylase. It will just not produce as much. Beta
Limit Dextrins (large dextrins formed from amylopections) can only be
broken down by Alpha. But all of the amylose starches can be fully
broken down into maltose by Beta. According to Brewing by Lewis and
Young, Amylose represents about 25% of the total starch.

So, in a 60C, 70C multistep infusion mash:
At 140F, Beta amylase cuts all the available maltoses off the tips of
the amylopectins, to within 3 glucoses (1 maltose = 2 glucoses) of the
branch points, plus reduces all of the amyloses to maltose.
At 157F, Alpha amylase breaks up all of the Beta Limit Dextrins,
leaving Alpha Limit Dextrins (smaller), and any surviving Beta breaks
down resulting amyloses to maltoses.

Also, let's be clear about Alpha Amylases functionality- it attacks
the same 1-4 straight chain bonds that Beta does, but does it randomly
to within 1 glucose of the 1-6 bond branch point. Beta attacks 1-4
bonds systematically and sequentially chopping maltoses off of one of
the polar ends of an amylose.

And, let's suppose Nature did work the enzymes the other way around,
that Beta was the high temperature enzyme and Alpha was the low. We
would then suffer complete conversion to 100% maltose, which the yeast
would completely ferment, leaving no residual sweetness from dextrins.
Not beer by my book.

(Great question and discussion, btw) :-)

John Palmer
jjpalmer at realbeer.com
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/
How To Brew - the book
http://www.howtobrew.com
(sitemap located at http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/SitemapA.html )





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:13:50 -0500
From: "Charles Beaver" <cbeav at netnitco.net>
Subject: Technology Brewing and Malting

I am trying to find a copy of Kunze's book in English. I have
e-mailed the web site in Berlin but have received no reply. Does anybody
know where I may obatin the text?




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:12:03 -0700
From: Scott Perfect <perfect at marzen.llnl.gov>
Subject: Clean Beer Glasses

Jeff in 3392 and Brett in 3393 were discussing soaps, detergents, and
cleaning of beer glasses.

There was an article in the magazine "All about Beer" in 1984 titled
"Beer Clean."
The suggested procedure for cleaning beer glasses was a hot wash in dish
soap,
and hot rinse. Next, some salt is poured into the glass, the glass is
scrubbed with
a brush or sponge, and then rinsed with cold water.  The salt is said to
remove the
detergent film.  I find that this procedure significantly improves head
retention.

I presume, in reference to Jeff's post, that "scum" is _less_ for
detergent vs. soap
but still not zero...

Scott Perfect
San Ramon, CA



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joseph Uknalis <birman at netaxs.com>
Subject: gelatinization again...

Sorry if this is a repeat, just noticed the thread...
Recently a bud & I made a batch of wit & used 'gelatinized wheat'
 instead of malted wheat in the mash.  Conversion seemed to take a
 little longer than usual & the final wort was really hazy (like
cornstarch in lemon juice, sort of like a Widmer Hefeweizen),
 it took about 3 weeks for the stuff to settle out...
turned out a fine batch nonetheless.

Is this typical with gelatinized wheat?  Does the barley enzyme
 need to work longer to digest the mass of wheat starch or is 
the starch in the wheat partially malted by the rolling process??

	thanks

	Joe




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:12:26 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Gelatinizatrion and Low T mashes, beer bums and linguistic

Brewsters:

This discussion on low T holds ( initiated by A-B responses to  questions
and Jeff Renner responding to my comments about the origin of the lower T
limit on mashing)  prompted me to consult M&BS on this subject.

P 225 of Vol1 2nd ed says:

"The starches in <adjuncts> vary in the difficulty with which they may be
degraded by amylases during mashing. Ease of gelatinization is associated
with the ease with which the starch grains swell and gelatinize as the
temperature is raised. However, swelling is a gradual time-dependent
process as is "gelatinization" and occurs over a range of temperatures.
Consequently when a malt is mashed, more than 90% of the extract can be
recovered eventually at tempertures below the notional gelatinization
temperature of the starch. "

Further down:

"Reported Gelatinization temperatures:

Maize           62-74C  143.5-165F
sorghum         69-75   156-167         
rice            61-78   142-178
wheat           52-64   125.5-147

barley          60-62   140-143-5
malted barley   64-67   147-152.5       

potato          56-69   133-156

Presumably kilning caused the gelatinization temperature of the malt starch
to exceed that of the barley".

Like Marc Sedam and, I guess,  M&BS , I would have thought that the malt
starch would be lower in Tgel , due to enzymic degradation. But it's not.

This also explains Jeff Renner's correct recollection that barley starch
gel temp was in the low 140s and my incorrect recollection that it was 149F
( although I wasn't sure which starch, malt or regular,  was being
discussed) . However, this data also fortuitiously supports my view that
barley malt starch gelatinization temperature is the main reason for the
given lower limits of mashing as 149F as is commonly done.  This lower
limit is only a practical one in terms of production time and  can be
lowered by a longer mash time as pointed out  above. You can mash at a
lower temperature and get at least 90% efficiency versus, I presume, normal
mash if you wait longer.

As far as mashing at a highish temperature and allowing the temperature to
fall as Brian asks, this will work and seems to make some sense from the
active temperature ranges of the enzymes as he points out . Overnight
mashers without temperature control do this, but you will produce a low
dextrin beer as many of the dextrins which are produced in the normal
temperature profile in the absence of beta amylase late in the mash at
higher Ts will be reduced to simple sugars in this inverse T hold . Also, 
the temperature ranges Brian quoted were "optimal" numbers.
- -----------------------------
I suspect that making beer is so much work and takes such a long
concenrtated effort to be successful  that few true alcoholics ("drunks")
take up this hobby.  However, there are some I am sure. I remember one
HBDer in the past had to sell his rig or lose his wife as he was out of
control. But he would have likely been out of control if he weren't
brewing.  In my experience with some alcoholic friends and employees in the
past, they have no care for anything that interferes with drinking.

Like others, I too have saluted the porcelain god from drinking too much
beer, especially in my younger days. I have no pride in that, though. I am
thankful nothing permanently untoward happened to me or my family or others
as a result.  As most of us should be.

I somehow find the idea that beer drinkers are lower class a little out of
date in the US ( and never was in vogue in the rest of the world outside of
Islamic countries). I know Bud furthers this appeal by aiming at this
target. Maybe these "beer bar" types are the largest consumer on a personal
basis, but I find it hard to believe this is true in the conglomerate
populatiion. I would hate to think that if I were to buy a sixpack that
someone thinks for this reason "There goes another beer bum".  I doubt it.

For our Ozzie friends, and in the interest of linguistic clarity,  a "beer
bum" in this context has nothing to do with your posterior. Although some
us of may have one,  we aren't one from being homebrewers. Is that clear?

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:29:03 -0400
From: Rick Pauly <flp2m at virginia.edu>
Subject: Question:High gravity dilution(again)


We talked earlier about this sbject and found that O2 was the biggest problem.
One solution being boiling and rapidly cooling the water then adding it to
the beer.
But what if the beer has been through primary and secondary and is ready
for the keg which will then be pressurized with CO2 and I just had 1.5 gal
per 5 gallon keg of boiled NOT cooled water.

Any one see any problems?

Rick



Return to table of contents

---