---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  Re: Homebrew Digest #659 (June 14, 1991) (John Ross)
  Beer bellies, cholesterol and imagination. ("DRCV06::GRAHAM")
  subscribe to hbd (David J. Sylvester)
  sparging -- cloudy runnings (olson)
  Beer bellies (dbreiden)
  Re: Primitive brewing (Darryl Richman)
  costs of mashing (Darryl Richman)
  Miller Genuine Draft (dbreiden)
  beer and cholesterol?? (krweiss)
  strawbs ("KATMAN.WNETS385")
  Xingu Beer ("Ihor W. Slabicky")
  Re: Xingu beer
  Beer and Cholesterol (Dave Huyink)
  Liquid vs. Dried Yeast (Martin A. Lodahl)
  To mash, or to extract ... ("DRCV06::GRAHAM")
  maltiness, body, kudos, and a brewery tour (Stephen Russell)
  Re: Homebrew Digest #659 (June 14, 1991)  (hersh)
  re Beer and Cholestorol ?? Beer Bellies. (Chip Hitchcock)
  Cost of Brew (C.R. Saikley)
  Why Punts? well... (Jeff La Coss)
  strawberrys and harpoon (GERMANI)
  reusing 5 liter minikegs (Mark Sandrock)
  Supplies (IOCONNOR)
  Lithuanian libations (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  new prod. cholesterol ("KATMAN.WNETS385")
  Recipes for brewing wheat beer from extract (Gene Schultz)


Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com
[Please do not send me requests for back issues]
Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu


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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 08:00:24 EDT
From: ross at buphy.bu.edu (John Ross)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #659 (June 14, 1991)

PLEASE DROP MY NAME FROM THE MAILING LIST.

	THANK YOU,

	JOHN B ROSS
	ROSS at BUPHY.BU.EDU

Return to table of contents


Date: 14 Jun 91 08:28:00 EDT
From: "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <graham%drcv06.decnet at drcvax.af.mil>
Subject: Beer bellies, cholesterol and imagination.

Get out your salt shaker ... here it comes.

Cholesterol is a uniquely animal product.  It is found in meats, butter, 
cheese, etc.  Unless you are making a rather exotic beer, such as putting 
real cream in your cream stout, your beer will not contain any cholesterol.

Your beer will contain calories.  Pure alcohol has 6.96 calories per gram, 
and the rest of the stuff in the beer, mostly carbohydrates have about 4 
calories per gram.  A quick look at Bowes & Church shows that beer has 
about the same calories as a soft drink, (non diet).

Three beers or three Cokes ... about the same caloric content ... but much 
more nutrition in the beer ... a health food.

Sugar is one of the worst things you can put into your body.  From that 
standpoint, a beer is far, far better than a soda.  Y'know, this sounds 
interesting ... I think I'll start a "Beer is a health food" campaign.

Let's see now, if you replaced all sugar with beer, and all cholesterol 
with beer, you'd drink about three pints a day ... yeah, sounds great!  
Come to think of it, pizza is a health food, too.  Bread, tomatoes, onions, 
peppers, mushrooms, cheese ... a real health food.  Beer and pizza .. what 
will they think of next!

Dan Graham
"Beer made with the Derry air."



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 08:43:44 -0400
From: David J. Sylvester <sylveste at wsfasb.crd.ge.com>
Subject: subscribe to hbd

Please add me to the subscription list for homebrew digest. Mail to 

sylveste%wsfasb at crd.ge.com

Thank you 
David Sylvester


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 10:51:09 EDT
From: olson at antares.cs.Virginia.EDU
Subject: sparging -- cloudy runnings



Fellow relaxers,

Reading HBD has gotten me interested in mashing, and my last two batches
have been partial mashes (3 lbs grain) following the directions in
Miller's TCHBoHB.  The mash itself is tons o' fun, and the magical
transformation from grainy to sweet does, as promised, make you feel 
like a wizard.  Then comes the part that gives me trouble -- the sparge.
Miller says to recirculate the first runnings once, then sparge and "let
the clear wort fall into your boiler".  Other things I've read call for
you to recirculate until the wort clears.  Unfortunately, my worts
never run clear.  Last night I recirculated for a full hour, with 
negligible improvement after the first 20 minutes or so.  The wort was
turbid enough that a spoon stuck into it faded to invisibility an inch
or two below the surface.  My questions are:

1) Am I being too compulsive about this?  Should the wort really run
"crystal clear", as per Miller?

2) If it should, what am I doing wrong?  Following Miller, I use the
straining basket from a 2-gallon spaghetti cooker to hold the grains,
and smooth the grain out with a spoon to form a slightly concave
surface.  I pour recirculated wort (and later, sparge water) gently
over the depression, so as not to mess up the bed too much.  I keep
the rate of sparging low, so that most of the liquid goes through the
bed to the bottom of the strainer rather than oozing out through the
sides.  There doesn't seem to be a lot I can do to get better
filtering from the grain bed, except to mash more grain :-) The
quality of the crush is, of course, a prime suspect.  Not having a
Corona (it's on order), I buy my grains pre-crushed from the folks at
The Home Brewery, who use an industrial 2-roller mill.  One presumes
they do it right, since the owners are dedicated mashers themselves.
There are a significant number of whole and half husks in the grist,
but I do notice a small amount of whitish dust at the bottom of the
bag -- I've been assuming it's crushed malt, which Miller says is OK.
Could that be the culprit?  I try to discard it at mash-in, but you
can't get it all...

Any advice appreciated!

- --Tom Olson

Thomas J. Olson           | olson at virginia.edu   | Ave color vini clari
Dept. of Computer Science | work: (804) 982-2217 | Ave sapor sine pari
University of Virginia    | home: (804) 971-7176 | Tua nos inebriari
Charlottesville, VA 22903 |                      | Digneris potentia!


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 10:24:38 -0500
From: dbreiden at mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Subject: Beer bellies

Someone was wondring what part of beer produces beer bellies.

I would guess it's the calories  :-)  I've always heard that alcohol
is high in calories.  So drink homebrew and put low-fat low-cal dressing
on your salad -- that way you'll come out even.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 06:56:59 -0700
From: darryl at ism.isc.com (Darryl Richman)
Subject: Re: Primitive brewing

>From: tamulis at gauss.math.nwu.edu (Andrius Tamulis)

If you get to Europe, check out one of the many open-light or open-air
museums.  These are large parks that have been filled with old buildings
that would otherwise have been torn down.  In particular, just about
every farm house I looked at, regardless of how small or primitive,
included a corner that had a large copper pot built into it, over a
fire.  These pots were generally in the 15-20 gallon range.

Andrius description matches some old recipes I have read, where straw is
placed in a tun and then crushed grain placed on top of it.  Alternate
infusions of warm and boiling water are then added and strained off, and
this is then boiled and left to cool, and then yeast (barm) is added the
next day.  In fact, the farmers often used a device to hang onto their
yeast culture that had pieces of wood strung on a knotted rope, like a
large necklace.  With a tremendous surface area, the yeast could hide in
the nooks and crannies until the next batch was brewed.

		--Darryl Richman


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 06:59:44 -0700
From: darryl at ism.isc.com (Darryl Richman)
Subject: costs of mashing


Regarding the cost issues between grain and extract, most of the
responses have put them on a par, especially when you consider
amortization of the equipment.  I disagree with that, but I do buy
grains and hops in bulk.  I've calculated it before and the ingredients
cost per bottle of beer is in the 7-8 cents range.  (E.g., 7 lbs. 2 row
malt  at  .40/lb., 1 lb. crystal  at  .55/lb., 2 oz. hops  at  .20/oz. -> $3.75 /
5 gal * 1 gal / 10 bottles -> 7.5c / bottle.)  If you've got some
storage space in your garage, you can buy barrels of grain at these
prices.  Fortunately, we've got a maltster locally that is cooperative.

As for equipment costs, I spent about $25 on an immersion chiller I
built.  The two kegs I cut up to cook in were each $10 deposit.  The 80
quart Coleman cooler I use as a lauter tun was about $40 on sale.  The
gas fittings for setting up the two dead water heaters I use to cook
with cost about $15.  There's probably another $25 in assorted things
that I haven't included.  I did pay $200 for a big, used chest freezer,
and another $60 for the thermostat (of course, the Hunter unit that
everyone has been talking about is a great deal at $20).  But these were
later additions to my brewing gear.  This lets me brew in 15 gallon
batches.  For lower gravity beers I can produce as much as 25 gallons
(for example, English Mild) and for higher ones (e.g., barleywines), as
little as 10.  The limiting factor right now is my mashtun/boiler size.

I personally think that mashing is great.  It takes me about 6 hours
to brew a simple beer like a bitter, longer for more complex ones.
Of course, the first couple of times, expect to spend a long day--
I've yet to see an all-grain brewery come online that didn't have
some bugs to be worked around.

		--Darryl Richman


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 10:35:14 -0500
From: dbreiden at mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Subject: Miller Genuine Draft

Last night I wanted something light and thin, so I bummed a Miller GD from
my roommate.  It's a pretty good beer for when you want an American style
beer.  Anyhow, I was looking at the label and recalling the stuff I've
heard about Miller brewing and the treatment of hops.  On the label, the
words "No additives or preservatives" are boldy displayed.  And of course,
the ingredients are not listed, they simply say "Contains malt, hops, yeast,
and water.  Selective listing indeed.  So I was thinking, "If they treat the
hops, wouldn't that result in an additive?"  

In the course of this thinking, I once again got to thinking what a shame
it is that ingredients need not be given for beers.  I really wish I could
see what is in the beer I'm drinking.  When enjoying an American beer, I'd
like to know for sure if they use corn sugar, or corn syrup, or rice, or
whatever.  But my thinking just got me sort of frustrated.  So I had another
beer and quit thinking about it.

So anyhow, why is it that Miller can proudly proclaim that they put no additives
in their beer when, apparently, their hops are goofed up to prevent skunking?

 -Danny


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 08:37:54 -0700
From: krweiss at ucdavis.edu
Subject: beer and cholesterol??

>From: vijay at cs.albany.edu (Vijay Vaidyanathan)
>Subject: Beer and Cholestorol ?? Beer Bellies.
>
>Having just been diagnosed as having a "Cholestorol Problem"
>(specifically, too little "good Cholestorol" and too much "bad
>Cholestorol"), my wife has suggested that Beer may not be the best
>thing for me. On the other hand, I can think of no reason that
>Beer can contribute (or aggravate) a cholestorol problem.

I can only offer a single anecdotal data point. I have been drinking 6 - 12
beers per week for over 20 years. Shit, it sounds sort of frightening when
you put it down in black and white like that. 20 years. I never thought I'd
LIVE 20 years, let alone be drinking beer for that period of time...

Anyway, my cholesterol levels are excellent. Low total cholesterol, and a
very high ratio of "good" (HDL?) to "bad" (LDL?). My mental acuity,
however, is considered deficient by some members of my family and
workgroup. Well, everybody thinks I'm a bit dim. But, hey, can THEY brew
good beer?


Ken Weiss                                  krweiss at ucdavis.edu
Manager of Instruction
Computing Services                         916/752-5554
U.C. Davis
Davis, CA 95616


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 14:25 GMT
From: "KATMAN.WNETS385" <6790753%356_WEST_58TH_5TH_FL%NEW_YORK_NY%WNET_6790753 at mcimail.com>
Subject: strawbs



     Date: 14-Jun-91      Time: 10:25 AM       Msg: EXT01409

Hello,
Having made strawberry wine and cordial (no strawberry beer or mead yet) and
tasted strawberry eau de vie, it seems that the strawberry taste is not strong
enough to go through the fermentation process. The wine smells strongly of
strawbs and is a lovely brownish red color, but it really doesn't taste much of
strawberries. It is a generically fruity tasting wine. The eau de vie doesn't
taste like anything but alcohol. It smells nice though. I guess all but the
smell-producing components get left on the other side of the distill. The
cordial (soak sliced or mashed berries in vodka for a month then add sugar
syrup or honey to taste) tastes of strawberries. Raspberries give things a
stronger taste and color. I expect the strong malt flavor would overpower the
subtle strawberry.

Lee Katman == Thirteen/WNET == New York, NY

=Do not= use REPLY or ANSWERBACK, I can not receive mail in that fashion.
Please send all mail to
INTERNET katman.wnets385%wnet_6790753 at mcimail.com
OR
MCIMAIL EMS: wnet 6790753  MBX: katman.wnets385



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 09:37:59 -0400
From: "Ihor W. Slabicky" <iws at sgfb.ssd.ray.com>
Subject: Xingu Beer


> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 09:05:03 mdt
> From: hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!att!drutx!homer
> Subject: Indigenous World Beers

> Charlie Papazian has asked me to pass this along to this net.

>Brewers Publications is researching and sleuthing a book for the
>"Classic Beer Styles Series" that will probably be published in
>1993 on the subject of "Indigenous Brews of the World." Things
>like Nepalese chong, Mexican Chicha, South African Sourgum beer,
>Korean Makkolli, American Apache brew, Sumerian beer, casava beer
>of Oceania, Okole from ancient Hawaii, Tuak from Sulawesi and
>many others we know or don't know about.
>
>Send your notes to Charlie Papazian, Brewers Publications, PO Box 287,
>Boulder, CO 80306.

Would you pass this along to him about this South American brew...


Subject: Re: Xingu beer
Newsgroups: rec.food.drink

> Has anyone ever had this S. American beer?  What is its area of distribution?
> And does it come in cans?

Xingu - pronounced 'SHIN goo' comes from the Caccador Brewery,
State of Santa Catarina, Brazil (~600 miles southwest of Rio). 
It is an Indian recipe converted to a brew of barley, water,
hops, and yeast.  The grain is roasted by open fire malting. 
It is a black, dense, opaque, LAGER beer.  It is brewed on site,
using Brazilian hops and barley.  The brew was developed by
Alan D. Eames.  Brazil used to brew quite a few great 'black' or
'escura' lagers.  Unfortunately, these have been discontinued in
favor of lager production by the majors (Brahma, Kaiser, and
Antartica).  The Indian tribes along the Xingu river and it's
tributaries (Amazon area) still brew these beers. Their
process is basically malted grains, lupine herbs, and airborne
yeasts - with the women chewing the grain and spitting the mash
into pots, the resulting 'mash' being cooked over open fires
and giving the beer it's 'blackness' from the smoke - and lagered
in underground clay pots.
Eames took their recipe and converted it to a commercial process. 
The resulting brew pours and looks like a stout but tastes like
a lager.  It is BLACK.  It has ~4 % alcohol by volume.

It is distributed by Caparra Sales Co., Randolph, MA
(617) 986-2337.  Maine artist Eric Green painted the Xingu
label, based on antique maps of the Xingu river region and
included a Txukahamei warrior with a lip disk.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 11:16:16 -0500
From: huyink at npdiss3.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dave Huyink)
Subject: Beer and Cholesterol


Vijay Vaidyanathan asks about beer and cholesterol.
 
>Having just been diagnosed as having a "Cholestorol Problem"
>(specifically, too little "good Cholestorol" and too much "bad
>Cholestorol"), my wife has suggested that Beer may not be the best
>thing for me. On the other hand, I can think of no reason that
>Beer can contribute (or aggravate) a cholestorol problem.

First, let me say that I am sorry to hear about your problem.  You will
probably have to change your lifestyle in terms of diet and exercise, and
that is difficult for some to do.  I am no expert on cholesterol, but I
have done a little research on it since it is a problem in my family.
My understanding is that a cholesterol problem is caused or aggravated 
by ingesting saturated fats from foods, especially those which come from 
animals, but also from certain plants.  

Usually people with this problem are told to eliminate butter, whole milk, 
coconut, palm oil, etc. from their diets, and eliminate or reduce the eating
of pork, beef, eggs (especially the yolks) etc.  On the other hand, they are 
encouraged to substitute for the above: margarine, low fat or skim milk,
chicken, turkey, fish; and should eat lots of fruit and vegetables.  They
should also reduce or eliminate fried foods (fried potatoes, french fries,
etc.) and cook with vegetable oil instead of butter or lard (actually
olive oil is even better because it is a monosaturated oil which helps
reduce blood cholesterol. 

Beer does not contain saturated fats, so it can not cause or aggravate
blood cholesterol levels to any significant degree directly.  But, it may
in some cases, indirectly!  How?  Read on.

>On the other hand my wife claims that "Beer gives you a Belly" ...
>what exactly is it in Beer that gives you the infamous "beer
>Belly".

Does beer really give you a "beer" belly?  I know several beer drinkers, some
have "beer" bellies, some do not.  I had a friend who spent his life working
as a brewer for Miller (the beer, not the infamous author).  He is dead now,
not of a cholesterol related problem, but of diabetes. But he one time told
me that he felt that the "beer" belly was a result not of the "beer" that 
people drank, but of what they ate (potato chips, peanuts, etc.) while
they were drinking beer.  

I know of no scientific study to support this, but it makes some "horse"
sense to me.  Add to that the fact that these same people may also be
"couch potatoes" who are ingesting all of this stuff while watching some
sporting event on TV, instead of participating in one themselves, and it
could be that beer really contributes very little to the "beer" belly.

This is what I meant above by beer contributing indirectly to higher levels
of cholesterol.  What are you eating when you drink beer?

Now, before anyone flames me, let me say that I mean for the "indirect"
connection between beer and cholesterol to be taken lightly (i.e. with a
grain of salt substitute!).  But, it might be *FOOD* for thought. (You
can flame me for the bad pun.)

Finally, let me say again that I am no expert.  Before deciding on you own
diet (or changes to it), talk to a real expert.

I hope that controlling your cholesterol levels is a manageable project 
for you.

David Huyink


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 9:51:05 PDT
From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah at PacBell.COM>
Subject: Liquid vs. Dried Yeast

In HOMEBREW Digest #659, Ifor Wyn Williams notes:

> Many people have strong views about the relative merits of fresh
> yeast, liquid yeast, dried yeast, freeze dried yeast, ... etc. One
> thing that has puzzled me for a long time is that for a given quantity
> and strain of yeast, how does the manner in which the yeast has been
> stored affect the resulting beer?

It's not the storage as much as it is the processing required.  It's
hard on yeast to be dried out and rehydrated.  Many are killed by
the process, so in the interests of viability, strain selection
stresses "ruggedness" rather than ideal brewing characteristics. 
Additionally, there seems frequently to be a question of
contamination in dry yeasts, which is not a necessary attribute of
the process, but rather symptomatic of "relaxed" QA on the part of
the producers.  There have been several excellent articles on this
subject in Zymurgy in the last couple of years.

A liquid culture, however, is no guarantee of quality.  We've come
to feel that it is, because for most of us, the liquid yeast
cultures we're most familiar with is the Wyeast "Brewers' Choice"
line, which is most certainly an outstanding product in every sense.

= Martin A. Lodahl   			  Pacific*Bell Staff Analyst =
= malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM       Sacramento, CA       916.972.4821 =
= If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me!  8-)   =


Return to table of contents


Date: 14 Jun 91 13:35:00 EDT
From: "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <graham%drcv06.decnet at drcvax.af.mil>
Subject: To mash, or to extract ...

I love it!  Nothing like getting into a subject where religious fervor is 
involved.  To mash or to extract is a wonderful way to explore the reasons 
and pleasures of homebrewing in the first place.

I'm nearly blind.  For that reason, I've stuck to just extracts.  That is, 
extracts plus adjunct grains, oatmeal and anything else I can imagine.  
There is no question that all grain bers have the potential to be the best 
in my opinion.  That being said, notice that nearly half the recipes in The 
Winner's Circle are extract based.

I believe that part of the reason people get better results from all grain 
brews than from extract based recipes is that they take more care with 
their all grain exploits.  I do full wort boils with my extracts and 
adjuncts and take care to condition the water if needed.  

I'm terribly pickey about the extracts I use and try to follow the best of 
techniques, whatever that is.  It's sort of l ike using fresh grape juice 
versus juice extracts in winemaking.  You will get good results from the 
extracts if you pay attention to detail.  You will get wonderful results 
from the fresh juice if, again, you pay attention to detail.

There are more details to pay attention to in all grain brewing, and if I 
could see better, I'd delight in paying attention to each one.  However, 
even with the limits of extracts, spectacular beers may be produced.  

One of the things I like best about this list is that there is no 
stratification among this group.  All grain brewers seem not to look down 
on us extract types, and we, or at least I, don't act like the mashers are 
hoyty-toyty.

Is all grain cheaper than extract?  Maybe, but with the recent price 
increases all of the distributors seem to have inflicted on us, I think 
Catamount Porter or Sam Adams Boston Ale may almost be cheaper.  But so 
what?  I have as much fun making beer as I do drinking it.

Now, what I really want to talk about is dehydrated beer.  It comes in a 
can, you just add beer...

Dan Graham
"Beer made with the Derry air."




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 15:47:03 EDT
From: srussell at snoopy.msc.cornell.edu (Stephen Russell)
Subject: maltiness, body, kudos, and a brewery tour

Greetin's,

	One thing that often puzzles me is how to impart malt aroma into 
beers.  It is straightforward that to impart hop aroma one uses finishing hops;
however, malt aroma is much more subtle and difficult to attain.  
	Munich malt usually does the trick, but plenty of beers that 
sure-as-hell don't have any of this malt in them (such as British ales and 
pale, fairly dry Pilseners) have a great deal of maltiness in their aroma.
What's the secret?  What yeasts tend to promote maltiness?  What would you
alter in your mashing schedule and/or recipes to assist?  I've used toasted 
and Munich malts with some success, but want to know more.....
	BTW, one impression I have is that if you leave a beer sit, the hop
aroma dies faster than the malt aroma.  Is this what you find as well, or have 
I been tasting too many in one sitting?

	As for the great dextrin 'n body debate, I have read Miller and agree
that he, at least, is convinced that it's proteins and not dextrins that con-
tribute to body.  However, I continually see other sources (Zymurgy articles,
other books, etc.) that attribute body to dextrins.  Since I was trained as an
all-grain brewer by using Miller's book, I tend to trust him the most, but
am still far from convinced.
	For one, body may stictly-speaking be defined as "palate fullness", 
but it is also considered a measure of viscosity.  And it would take many 
thorough experiments to convince me that sugars don't make aqueous solutions 
more viscous.  But perhaps the effect is negligible compared to what the 
medium-sized protein molecules do, or maybe I'm making a perceptual mistake.  
	Well, there is a simple experiment one could perform (by "one" here, I
mean someone less lazy than myself!).  Take two mashes with the same malt,
run them through the same protein rest schedule (thereby insuring identical
protein compositions) and then saccharify one at a high temp (66C, say) and 
one at a low temp (62C, say).  The former will be more dextrinous and therefore
less fermentable, the latter more saccharinous and fermentable.  Both should 
still have (roughly) the same initial gravity.  Ferment each under the same 
conditions using the same yeast.  The former will have a higher final gravity.
Which one will have more body????  Maybe one of you has an idea from your own
experiences even if you haven't performed this exact experiment.
	More discussion on this topic would be helpful, since controlling body
to beer is a common goal.  Besides, we haven't had a good flame in a while 
(remember cleaning wort chillers? recipe copyrights?  beer and your health?  
and so on, and so on.......)

	I would also like to ditto Norm Hardy's comments from yesterday;  kudos
to Darryl Richman for the fine article about his visit to the Pilsner Urquell 
brewery in the latest Zymurgy.  (Please don't strain your arm patting yourself
on the back again, Darryl!  I couldn't live with myself.)

	BTW, I've received several inqueries about our club's (the Ithaca
Brewers' Union) trip to Vernon Valley, NJ, the last weekend of July.  We will
get an owner-guided tour of the Clement Brewing Company and participate in the
theme park's Germanfest.  There are still plenty of openings, so if any more 
of you are interested, please send e-mail to me directly.
(srussell at snoopy.msc.cornell.edu)
		
Egeszsegedre,

(Hungarian for "to your health")

STEVE

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 13:33:19 EDT
From: hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #659 (June 14, 1991) 


>	A good idea even if you're not priming in thre keg. I
>bet B-brite tastes terrible, tho I haven't confirmed this.

Having gotten a pull of it on occasion from cleaning racking tubes with I can
attest that it does taste pretty nasty, at least straight, now I don't know
about cut with beer. Perhaps a lime twist??

>I just received a letter from the brewmaster at Pilsner Urquell who guided
>me around.  PU is going to be upgrading their fermenting and lagering cellars
>to all stainless open primaries and cylindroconical fermenters.  All of the
>oaken barrels are being removed.  They are working to improve the shelf
>life of their beer, and intend to begin canning it as well.

Uh oh, does this mean captialism is about to ruin one of the world's great
breweries?? Will it be possible for PU to retain that taste without the oak
barrels to ferment in?? I had gotten the impression (or perhaps Michael Jackson
was just overly romanticizing the Old World effect) that these were rather
important to the beers character. Darryl do you know if they have or will be
doing test brews to see what the effect of weaning from the oak barrel
fermenters will be??

JaH


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 14:41:03 EDT
From: cjh at vallance.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: re Beer and Cholestorol ?? Beer Bellies.

   GROSSLY SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION:

   Most sugars are chains or rings of 6 carbon atoms. You and yeast go
through similar processes to get energy from sugar: break in half,
rearrange, break off 1/3 as C02, what's left is ethanol (or an
ethanol-oid stub, C20..).
   This only gets the small part of the energy that can be released without
additional oxygen. Us aerobic types can run ethanoloids through a slow burn
that turns C20 into (C02)x2, releasing lots more energy---enough that if
you drink a lot, or eat lots of sugar, you'll find (after you come down)
that most of it has been stored as fat (long carbon chains) rather than
burned, since most of us don't run marathons while drinking and so don't
need the energy. When we do need the energy, the fat gets unzipped 2
carbons at a time and you get back the ethanoloid to be burned.
   There is a third path for the ethanoloid, before or after it's been
stored as fat: pound 3 of them together, lose a carbon, and you get a
Y-shaped 5-carbon ]chain[. Hook 6 of these together, kick them so they make
a multi-ring shape I'm not going to try to show in ASCII, and you get
cholesterol. (Boo! Hiss!) This is why plant oils can be preferable to animal
fats; the chains have occasional extra bonds which plants can make and
unmake and animals (including us) can't, so you get the taste/feel of fat
without as much of the raw material for cholesterol.
   Very few foods have significant amounts of cholesterol in them, so
"cholesterol-free" is misleading (the FDC is now taking on this issue);
what matters is not just the fat content but its type. There are other
complications, e.g. egg yolks do have significant amounts of cholesterol,
but (a) they have other nutrients some of us may not get enough of, (b)
eggs are a cheaper source of protein (in terms of energy & plant foods to
make) than most other animal-deriveds, and (c) some part of the cholesterol
appears to be in a complex form which is actually beneficial (it's
believed to scavenge loose cholesterol) or at least not harmful.
   The arguments over eggs are typical: there are still disagreements about
the effects of almost any dietary factor you care to name. (Large
quantities of salt were on everybody's hit list the last time I looked, but
even that may have changed....) The metabolic pathways are massively more
complicated than I describe, and it's not clear what overall effect you can
expect from a given diet; not nearly enough Framingham-style research
(examining large populations over many years, tracking diets and sorting by
every conceivable variable) has been done. The arguments with the loudest
plurality are now pointing toward complex carbohydrates (i.e., starches) as
the best source for the bulk of the calories we consume, but nobody knows
the effects of all the other things you eat or drink; cf arguments that
moderate (definition varying) drinking can reduce tension (e.g., blood
pressure) enough to be, on the balance, a life-extender.
   This isn't a matter of RDWHaH, but the issue of what you should eat and
what you should weigh is much bigger than how much beer you're drinking,
and it depends on many more factors. Teetotalers can have a "beer bellies";
their livers might be in better condition but their overall health may not
be as good as that of occasional drinkers who aren't as obviously
overweight.  It's arguable that the key to health, now that we don't have
to gorge or starve with the seasons, is moderation. Homebrewers \can/
be good at this; I've seen a lot of beer around Wort Processors meetings and
haven't noticed anyone being unsociably drunk.
   This may not seem very informative---but the one thing I'm sure of is
that absolutely certain answers are very likely to be wrong (cf. Clarke's
3rd Law).

   Final note: making cholesterol is not a nasty trick our body pulls on
us. Cholesterol is needed in cell walls; also, many hormones (sex, growth,
etc.) are very close relatives of cholesterol, having the same multi-ring
base with slightly different ornaments (usually 1-2 carbons or 1 oxygen) in
varying locations to differentiate them.
   A common argument is that our total fat intake and our net calorie
balance (intake vs used) have become much higher in the last few
generations than they were in most of our evolution, and that cholesterol
problems are a consequence of this. It's argued that the "peasant" diet
(mostly grains, with occasional meat for a treat or flavoring) is similar
to that of our distant ancestors and our closest relatives (e.g.,
Australopithecus and chimpanzees), and hence is the one that our
metabolisms are best designed-for. The judges aren't all back, and the
issue is complicated by all of the separate economic interests trying to
sell us the food they've produced.

Chip Hitchcock (cjh at ileaf.com)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 12:27:47 PDT
From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
Subject: Cost of Brew

Greetings fellow brewers. I've returned from a recent net-hiatus, and hope
to be able to participate in the hbd more frequently again.

Anyway, I tuned into the discussion of all grain vs. extract brewing and 
wanted to add my two cents. Basically I think that Martin covered the
questions very thoroughly, but I'd like to add some of my thoughts to
the following question.

>  - Is the final per bottle cost less, or more?

I don't really buy the "well-it's-a-hobby-so-why-do-you-care-how-much-it-
costs" attitude. Cost may not be of concern to some, but not everyone
is that fortunate. 

Grain brewing can be *much* cheaper than extract, provided that you can
get a good price break on ingredients. Some friends of mine recently pooled
their resources and bought one ton of malt. They got a deal. I often get
my grain from a nearby microbrewery for the bargain basement price of $0.23
per pound! If you can work out an arrangement with other members of your
homebrew club and with a supplier, you will save bucks. As an example, here
is a breakdown of a recent brew. It was very inexpensive, simple and above 
all delicious.

	28 lbs Klages malt 	0.23 X 28  	$ 6.44
	3  oz Northern Brewer			  3.00
	Sierra Nevada Yeast			  free
	Propane					 ~1.00

	Total					 10.44

This yielded five cases of beer for about $2.00 per case. Granted the price
would increase for a brew with lots of specialty malts. Nonetheless, you
won't get anywhere near $2.00 per case for even the simplest extract brew.
Of course not everyone will be able to get grains for $0.23 per pound, but
as they say, here is another data point.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 13:08:11 PDT
From: Jeff La Coss <jlacoss at ISI.EDU>
Subject: Why Punts? well...

 Wine bottles have punts for (at least two reasons)

 1) Tradition - recall that glass bottles were hand-blown until
relatively recently. When the hot glob o' glass is pulled from the
oven, it is blown into a small globe to start working it into shape.
During further shaping operations, the globe was set onto the end of a
carbon rod (a "punty") to support it while being spun. Since bottles
always looked that way......

 2) Punts DO make the bottle bottom stronger - the glass is in
comression rather than SHEAR.

 It was recognized early on that the punt had advantages - secondary
fermentation isn't always desireable, but it occurred frequently in
wines. Secondary fermentation was first used by Dom (Father) Perignon
as an experiment. Champagne bottles were and still are made of HEAVY
glass to prevent them from exploding while being racked to collect the
dead yeast. Crown (pop-bottle) caps are used also for pressure relief
during racking - they are replaced with the cork&wire affair after the
yeast has been removed from the bottle.

	Jeff

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 16:05 EST
From: GERMANI%NSLVAX at Venus.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: strawberrys and harpoon

Greetings,

Speaking of strawberrys in beer, has anyone tried Harpoon on tap?  Harpoon 
is brewed somewhere around the Boston area.  The last time I had it (at
least a year ago) it had a distinct strawberry flavor.  I assume that they
don't put strawberrys in but it was just some contamination.  It's a pretty
good beer though.  Has anyone else noticed this?  Anyone know why?

Glub glub glub (I talk to my beer, and it talks to me),
	Joe

Bitnet: GERMANI at YALEVMS
Decnet: 44421::GERMANI


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

What care I how time advances:
I am drinking ale today.			Poe

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 15:25:16 CDT
From: Mark Sandrock <sandrock at aries.scs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: reusing 5 liter minikegs

Has anyone tried reusing the 5 liter beer kegs for homebrew? It seems
to be a useful size (~1.25 gallons) if they can be reused.  The only
problem I can see is that the `plug' gets punched into the keg, but
perhaps it wouldn't hurt anything to just leave it in there and find
another stopper to use in its place?  I like the idea of kegging part
of a 5 gallon batch and bottling the remainder (something for everyone!)

Cheers,
Mark Sandrock
- -- 
BITNET:   sandrock at uiucscs	        Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Internet: sandrock at aries.scs.uiuc.edu   Chemical Sciences Computing Services
Voice:    217-244-0561		        505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL  61801

Return to table of contents


Date:    Fri, 14 Jun 1991 17:26:27 EDT
From: IOCONNOR at SUNRISE.ACS.SYR.EDU
Subject: Supplies

Just a few thoughts on purchasing supplies.  

Often there are new folks who want to know where to get supplies.  
Prices are certainly a concern and so is freshness.  IMHO the best 
place to buy stuff is through a local shop, if you have one.

I've compared most of the prices at mine, and they seem to be not only 
cheaper, but there is no shipping since you pick it up yourself.  The 
added benefit of purchasing from a shop in person is that you can 
shoot the bull with the owner who is usually a pretty good brewer 
him/herself.

I like to patronize mine shop owner because he's so damn helpful--he 
even gives his home phone number out so if you have a problem you can 
call.  I dont think that that can be done with the catalog ones!

If you dont have a local shop, or the prices at your local shop are so 
outrageous, then the catalogs is the place to go, otherwise i'd go 
with a local.  I see my visits as an adventure.  It's not like going 
to the supermarket--I have to spend at least half an hour, even if I 
buy one thing!

Well, as the "Torch" used to say in the "Fantastic Four," "Flame on!"

Kieran

IOCONNOR at SUNRISE (bitnet)
IOCONNOR at SUNRISE.ACS.SYR.EDU (internet)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 15:37:36 mdt
From: hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!ihlpl!korz (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Lithuanian libations

Andriau--
You forgot to mention Gira, Midus, Vysninis and Krupnikas (the
latter two not fermented but you could probably run your car
on it in a pinch).  Well, Gira is not really fermented, but
usually turns out that way eventually, and Midus is simply a
Lithuanian version of mead.  In fact, I may take up Charlie
and Jim Homer on their offer and enter Gira and Midus recipes
for the book.  Guess it's off to Grandma's house for me...

I sveikata (to your health)!
Algis (but you can call me Al.)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 20:53 GMT
From: "KATMAN.WNETS385" <6790753%356_WEST_58TH_5TH_FL%NEW_YORK_NY%WNET_6790753 at mcimail.com>
Subject: new prod. cholesterol



     Date: 14-Jun-91      Time: 04:51 PM       Msg: EXT01421

Seen in Knife and Fork magazine:
1) you can make authentic English beer within 21 days, thanks to a
self-contained microbrewery available from Anselmo-Calif.-based Inlet Inc. By
adding water and providing yeast, the Axbridge Brewery bag (24 in. x 14 in.)
provides enough English bitter for 40 ten-ounce servings. The brewing bag
allows for natural carbonation. Available from $29.50 from Inlet, One Sanders
Ave., San Anselmo, CA 94960; (800) 786-5665.
2) Red wine, when consumed in moderation, may provide some protection against
heart disease, according to medical research conducted in France. In a study in
which 16 healthy men ]of course, no women were studied.| consumed three or four
glasses of red wine every day for two weeks, the chances of clotting were
reduced and the level of good cholesterol (HDL) rose while drinking the red
wine. White wine increased the level of both bad cholesterol (LDL) and HDL and
has no effect on tendaecy to clot. ]beer was not mentioned|

Lee Katman == Thirteen/WNET == New York, NY

=Do not= use REPLY or ANSWERBACK, I can not receive mail in that fashion.
Please send all mail to
INTERNET katman.wnets385%wnet_6790753 at mcimail.com
OR
MCIMAIL EMS: wnet 6790753  MBX: katman.wnets385



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 16:56:07 PDT
From: gschultz at cheetah.llnl.gov (Gene Schultz)
Subject: Recipes for brewing wheat beer from extract

Responding to R. Tidd's request for recipes for brewing wheat beer with
extract, I offer two very simple recipes:

1. 1 can (3.75 lb.) of Telford's Wheat Beer extract
   2 cups of granulated sugar
   3/4 oz. of Saaz hops
   1 package of Wyeast London Ale yeast

Bring two gallows of water to a boil, then add extract.  Add sugar.
Add 1/2 oz.  Saaz hops to the boil for 30 minutes.  Remove heat.  Add
1/4 oz. Saaz hops for aroma.  Add cool water to bring wort volume to
four gallons.  Cool to 75 - 80 degrees.  Transfer to primary and pitch
yeast.

Comments:

Ridiculously simple, but very nice and light.  Most people who don't
like wheat beers like this one, and many people think that this is
a commercial product, not homebrew!  The Telfords extract is probably 
the major factor in the success of this recipe--done just right.
You need to put in some sugar to bring up the level of fermentables,
but don't put in too much, or you'll get a cidery taste.  Don't follow 
Telford's instructions, which say that this kit can make five gallons--
too watery.

2. 1 can (3.75 lb.) of Telford's Wheat Beer extract
   2 cups of granulated sugar
   1 oz. of Saaz hops
   1 lb. of cracked wheat malt
   1 package of Wyeast Bavarian Wheat Ale yeast

Steep the cracked wheat in about two quarts of water at a constant
temperature of 170 degrees for 30 minutes.  Drain and save liquid.
Bring two gallows of water to a boil, then add extract and wheat mash.
Add sugar.  Add 3/4 oz. Saaz hops to the boil for 30 minutes.  Remove
heat.  Add 1/4 oz. Saaz hops for aroma.  Add cool water to bring wort
volume to four gallons.  Cool to 75 - 80 degrees.  Transfer to primary
and pitch yeast.

Comments:

I just tried this recipe, so I can't comment about the results.  I 
steeped the cracked wheat malt to get even more of a wheat taste. 
It will be interesting to see if the Bavarian Wheat Ale yeast will 
enhance the flavor.  This batch should be thicker and darker than 
the batch resulting from the first recipe.

                                    ---Gene Schultz
                                       Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
                                       gschultz at cheetah.llnl.gov


Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #660, 06/17/91
*************************************
-------

---