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


Contents:
  iodophor/Godzilla/yeast help (korz)
  Cranberries attn: M. Blongewicz (David Atkins)
  Temperature Controls (Kieran O'Connor)
  Hot priming and peach beer (19-Oct-1993 1709)
  mash procedure (Brian Bliss)
  oxidation confusion (Jim Sims)
  Beer hunting in Belgium: Part 2 (Brasserie de Silenrieux) ("Phillip Seitz")
  Re: HB law questions (Bob Wood)
  Cider (Meade Eggleston)
  liquid male extract (Geoff Reeves)
  Liquid Yeast: Friend or Fiend (Domenick Venezia)
  Relax, Don't worry, ... (Ulick Stafford)
  Re: Liquid Yeast (Jeff Frane)
  Amylase (COYOTE)
  WORT CHILLERS (greg.demkowicz)
  Hose vs copper tubing (Mike Sadul)
  Spruce Beer (REGINAH)
  HB law questions (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
  re: HB law questions (Mike Fertsch)
  Spruce Beer (John Scoblic)
  Hops FAQ nearly ready (npyle)
  Liquid Yeast: Friend or Fiend? (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
  grain storage (Mark Garti)
  Re: Applejack/distilling ("Pamela J. Day 7560")
  Homebrew and the law (Eric Wade)
  Belgian Special B  (Matthew Rowley) (ROWLEY)
  Alabama Laws (gjsparks)
  How Bad is Bad Beer? ("conley")
  Stores ("David S. Reher")


Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! 
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
  (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
  listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
  message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu



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

Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 14:33 CDT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: iodophor/Godzilla/yeast help

Eric writes:
>> Iodophor has a sort of metallic-chlorine-like taste ...  It's less  
>objectionable to me than chlorine itself, though. I think the key has to be  
>to drain thoroughly after sanitizing with the stuff, and to use pretty low  
>levels to start with. ... 12ppm is easily detectable.  We could do an  
>experiment...

I don't know about the taste, but I've been told by the manufacturer,
that Iodophor is non-toxic WHEN DRY.  All the instructions regarding
its use around brewing have included the mention of DRYING the sanitized
article.

>immediately for food service.  FDA considers 10ppm iodine

Around here 12.5ppm is what the Health Dept. requires.

>safe for consumption, though iodophor solution also contains
>phosphoric acid and isn't very tasty by itself.

Not all iodophors contain phosphoric acid -- the "phor" has nothing
to do with phosphoric acid -- this is what a chemist told me.
I found a really interesting article in an ASBC publication from
the 50's.  I'll see if I can get around to posting some of the
more interesting parts.

>[The original beer was a "Belgian" brown...  I would describe the flavor as  
>smoothly medicinal rather than infected]

Smoothly medicinal sounds to me like stale grain.  Some grains are more
suceptable to developing a phenolic smell/flavor -- I've found that 
DeWolf-Cosyns CaraPils is the most likely to develop this problem of all
the grains that I've tried.  I was talking to Tim Norris about this recently
and he suggested that perhaps it's the moisture content, since the CP has
a high moisture content compared to the other DWC grains.  The phenolic
flavor I'm talking about is similar to BandAids(tm).  Is that what you
smelled/tasted?  A little wheat malt can give you this flavor/aroma too.
Any wheat in the recipe?

*************************
Jack writes:
> Keep in mind that Godzilla is for real but the others are just just fictional 
> characters.

I agree.  You then, being Mothra, must have just been a figment
of our collective HBD imagination?

**************************
David writes:
>I'm a novice brewer (second batch) who has now learned, don't throw away
>the labels to your mixes or yeasts!  My question is about yeast.  I
>brewed two days ago a hopped extract for a strong ale.  Before adding
>the yeast to the (pre-)wort mix, I put it in water and warmed it.  The
>wort was at 70 degrees when I added the yeast.  Forty-eight hours later,
>there's been nary a bubble through my fermentation lock.  Would
>overwarming have killed the yeast, or was it more likely something else?

How warm did you warm it?  You should rehydrate yeast at between 90 and
110F and then let that slowly cool to your wort temperature before pitching.
I suspect that either you A) didn't aerate your wort enough, in which case
you should aerate the wort and add more yeast, B) shocked the yeast by
rehydrating in too COOL a water, in which case you should wait some more,
C) killed it by heating it over 130F, in which case you should add more
yeast, or D) it has already fermented out the whole batch while you were not
looking (is there a brown ring of crud on the walls of the fermenter, about
an inch wide, just above the level of the wort?  if yes, then it's probably
D).  If the lag time ends up being more than three or four days, then I
would taste the beer before bottling and dump it if it got infected.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 11:57 CDT
From: David Atkins <ATKINS at macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Cranberries attn: M. Blongewicz

Apologies to subscribers for use of bandwidth...
 
To Michael Blongenwicz--
	Haven't gotten any cranberry recipies other that two mentioned in the
Cat's Meow.  Sorry I hadn't replied earlier, can't reach you via personal email.
 
To readers--I'm still in the market for extract recipes using cranberries.  Any
experiences and tips would be appreciated.
 
Thanks,
David Atkins
UW-Madison
atkins at macc.wisc.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 16:57:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kieran O'Connor <koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: Temperature Controls

Folks--

As far as I know, there are only 3 temperature controllers for 
fridges--the Hunter, "The Controller" put out by Williams, and the Penn 
Temperature Control (this control needs modification).

Could anyone tell me if there are any others they've used or heard of? 
Thanks, its for an article.

BTW--who makes the Hunter Energy Monitor?

Kieran O'Connor

E-Mail Address: koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu
Syracuse, N.Y. USA




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 17:15:42 EDT
From: 19-Oct-1993 1709 <macneal at pate.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Hot priming and peach beer

Bart Thielges asked about adding hot priming sugar solution to wort for 
priming.  I do that all the time and haven't seen a problem yet.  I pour
the boiling corn sugar/water solution into my bottling bucket and then start
siphoning the beer into it.

Steven Tollefsrud asked about a peach beer.  I made one a couple of months
ago when my peach tree started producing.  I used a recipe from Dave Miller's
"Brewing the World's Great Beers".  It's basically a lightly hopped, lightly
colored, wheat & barley beer.  Ferment to near completion in primary and
siphon onto 10 lbs. of crushed peaches in the secondary and let ferment
another couple of weeks.  It has a great peach aroma and a very light and
refreshing taste.  The biggest problem I had with it was separating the beer
from the peaches.  I ended up leaving almost a gallon of beer behind because
of clogging siphons.  This caused a bit of a complication since I primed
for 5 gals -- the beer has to be well chilled to avoid gushers.

Keith MacNeal
Digital Equipment Corp.
Hudson, MA

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 13:53:52 -0500
From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss)
Subject: mash procedure


chris campanelli writes:
>I skip the
>mash-out and consistently get good yields.  It should also be noted
>that I use a picnic cooler and never perform a protein rest (I use
>Belgian malts).

My normal procedure exactly.  It's worked like a charm for the past
20 batches.

>I won't tell you how I grind my malt because I'll
>then be forced to use the "C" word.

"Crack"? "Cremate"?

Oooooooh - "C R U _ _".  (Hint - rhymes with "Lush").

Now if we could just manage to avoid using "Mash", "Sparge",
"Efficiency", and "Lactic", maybe we could keep the hbd down
to a reasonable size...

bb


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 08:03:07 EDT
From: sims at pdesds1.scra.org (Jim Sims)
Subject: oxidation confusion

>>
>>> From: arne thormodsen <arnet at kaibutsu.cup.hp.com>
>>> Subject: Oxidation and Filtering
>>> 
>>> OK, I'll be the heretic.  Hey, new brewers!  DON'T worry about oxidation
>>> when transferring to secondary.  The beer is cool and saturated
>>> (probably supersaturated) with CO2.  If it foams a little when you
>>> transfer it there is virtually no way it will oxidize, because CO2 is
>>> coming out.
>>> 
>>> Relax, have a homebrew, and shove that nasty ol' oxidation bogeyman back
>>> in the closet where it (usually) belongs.
>>> 
>>Seriously, fermented beer when young
>>will have around 1 atmosphere of CO2 in solution.  While this will rise
>>out of solution as the beer is racked, the original posters experience 
>>with a filter is certainly going to introduce some degree of oxidation. 
>>A small degree of splashing into the secondary is OK, putting it through
>>a filter/funnel is sure disaster.  Its just not worth it, or necessary.
>>

 Okay - I give up. How *do* I filter out those bits of gunk, fruit,
 etc from the primary (or secondary) fermenter when ready to bottle,
 without oxidizing? To say nothing of trying to filter out the hops,
 etc *before* going _into_ the primary....

jim

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 08:30:37 -0400
From: "Phillip Seitz" <p00644 at psilink.com>
Subject: Beer hunting in Belgium: Part 2 (Brasserie de Silenrieux)

Beer Hunting in Belgium: Part 2 of 7

Brasserie de Silenrieux
      (by Jim Busch: BUSCH at DAACDEV1.STX.COM)

      This brewery opened in December 1992, and is still largely
unknown.  A friend of one of our Belgium hosts had just visited
the brewery the month before our we arrived in Belgium, and
reported that they were brewing with unusual grains.  So when a
visit was suggested, we jumped on it.  
      It turns out that the government of Belgium had the notion
of developing brewing processes using non-traditional grains,
primarily as a way to stimulate agricultural production and open
markets for local agricultural products.  Early research and
small scale brewing experiments were performed in Canada and at
the university of Louvain-la-Neuve.  Successful beers were
produced using buckwheat and spelt (a wheat relative) as
principal ingredients.  These experiments were underwritten by
subsidies from the Belgian agriculture ministry, starting with
3-liter lab batches and working up to 6 hl batches using the
brewing studies facilities at Louvain-la-Neuve.
      Monetary assistance may also have been provided to the
organizers of the brewery, who have built a truly beautiful
modern facility in the south of Belgium near Chimay and a
vacation lake/camping area.  The brewery consists of three
dedicated production vessels; a mash tun, a special lauter tun,
and the kettle.  The mash tun and kettle are normal enough
stainless steel vessels while the lauter tun (if one can call it
a that--a separator might be more accurate) consists of a large
SS vessel containing a removable circular basket, or strainer,
and the strainer/basket is attached to a crane attached to
overhead support structures.  The strainer has slots in the
bottom and up the sides about 1/2 a meter from the bottom.  The
entire saccrified mash is pumped from the mash tun into the
basket, which is then slowly raised via the crane out of the
lauter tun.  In effect, the basket is used like a giant tea bag,
with the liquid runoff flowing through the slots into the vessel,
leaving the grains in the basket.  The liquid is then pumped over
to the kettle.  There is no sparging performed.  The brewers
admitted to less than ideal extraction of sugars and a generally
difficult separation stage.  
      Three SS unitank fermenters are used as primary vessels
while a fourth is used only for mixing the priming sugar prior to
the hand filling of champagne-type bottles.  A typical Belgium
top fermenting "abbey" strain of yeast is used, most likely quite
similar to that employed in numerous Belgium strong ale
breweries, including La Chouffe, La Binchoise and possibly La
Caracole.  Kegs are also used, and are sanitized using forced
steam; a steam hose is just pushed into the kegs and allowed to
vent, resulting in about 120 decibels of noise pollution. 
Definitely not my idea of a nice working environment.  The
brewers were a bit frustrated in terms of keg sales since it is
near impossible to break the stranglehold that the giant Belgium
brewing consortium, Interbrew, has on tap handles in the country. 
      One of the nice things about the design of this brewery is
that there is a steel catwalk running the entire length of the
brewing vessels, including the unitanks.  This allows the brewer
to do most of his work up top and close to the action.  The
brewery is generally well designed and constructed, although the
brewers noted the difficulty involved in packaging the products.
While the rest of the brewery is quite modern, there is no
bottling  line.  A set of manual bottle fillers are used for the
champagne bottles, and labels were applied to the bottles we
bought the old-fashioned homebrew way--with milk.
      The brewhaus is separated from the tasting room by large
plate glass windows.  The ceiling of the tasting room is brick!  
      We were able to sample the brewery's two products, Joseph
and Sara.  Joseph is a blonde beer of 6% ABV.  It consists of
55-60% spelt and the balance pale malt.  The bottle describes the
product as "Bier d'Epeautre" (epautre=spelt).  It is blond with a
big creamy head, typical "abbey" aroma and some citrus notes. 
Despite being produced from a large percentage of cereal grains,
the beer retains a high degree of malt/hop/yeast balance.  It is
a broad cross between abbey beers and the ever popular Wits.  The
beer is named after the person in the agriculture ministry who
lobbied for the revival of spelt as a brewing and food grain and
who, not coincidentally, provided the subsidies for the early
brewing experiments.
      Sara is a brune (brown beer), called "Biere de Sarrasin"
(sarrasin=buckwheat).  It is produced from equal parts of
buckwheat and malt and features a caramel aroma intermixed with
the abbey esters with a fairly light caramel finish.  This is a
good beer, but did not approach the quality of the Joseph.  It is
also 6% ABV.  


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 09:28:09 EDT
From: Bob Wood <wood at fs09.webo.dg.com>
Subject: Re: HB law questions

Scott Kaczorowski writes:

> If I remember my beer-lore correctly, I thought Big Jimmy O'Carter made
> homebrewing technically legal in this country (correcting an earlier
> oversight).  Being but a simple software engineer, my legal credentials
> are a good approximation of nil, but I thought federal law superceded
> state/local law.  That is, if the Feds say it's OK for me to manufacture
> certain kinds of drugs in my kitchen, then it doesn't matter one whit
> what Missouri or any other state has to say about it.  Yes?

Not true.  (You can decide for yourself whether this is good or bad).
I don't want to rant too much on this, but the U.S. Constitution attempts
to give states the ability to make their own laws, while giving the federal
government jurisdiction over inter-state issues (interstate commerce,
dealing with foreign countries, etc.) and enforcing rights guaranteed by 
the constitution.  When the feds want to enact a law which appears outside
their jurisdiction, they generally do it in one of these ways:

  * Pass a constitutional amendment (prohibition, for example).
  * Argue that the issue crosses state boundaries and therefore is already
    within their jurisdiction (FCC, for example).
  * Impose taxes/licensing on some products or services (brewing).
  * Threaten to withhold federal revenue from states unless the states
    pass their own laws for which the feds otherwise have no jurisdiction
    (many highway laws).

In the case of beer brewing, the feds collect taxes on alcoholic beverages.
The change that Carter signed simply said that if you make less than a
certain amount of beer for your own use, the feds won't tax you on it, and
won't require any special licensing.  There is no guarantee that any
particular state won't further restrict home brewing.

I think there is little chance of a U.S. Constitutional amendment being
passed to guarantee the right to brew beer.  Are there active movements in the
more restrictive states to have their state laws changed?

- -- bob wood

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 16:54
From: MEADE.SRVRHOST at test.readmore.com (Meade Eggleston)
Subject: Cider

Hi all.

I'm planning on making a batch of hard cider.  I'll was going to/may 
still use store bought cider.  The only problem is that the only cider I 
can find has 1/20 of 1% Potassium Sorbate.  Not being the chemist I 
wasn't sure if this stuff would kill the yeast I planned on adding 
(Yeast Labs Cider).

What is the Potassium Sorbate suppose to do?

Will it allow me to ferment with my own yeast?

Any unpleasant effect/tastes using cider with it mixed in?

Also, I was wondering about the effects of using Campden Tablets in the 
Cider.  I am a little leery about using any 
Please e-mail me directly and I'll summarize the responses.

Thanks,

Meade Eggleston
meade at readmore.com





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:45:12 -0700
From: reeves at lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves)
Subject: liquid male extract

>This formula uses 1.042 for a pound of
>DME (dry malt extract) in a gallon of water, about 1.034 for 
>LME (liquid male extract), and about 1.029 for speciality grains.  
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yuck! I wouldn't put that stuff in my beer!

Geoff


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 07:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Subject: Liquid Yeast: Friend or Fiend

In HBD 1251 Jerome asks if liquid yeast is Friend or Fiend.  FRIEND!!

Liquid yeast is a friend.  My beer got much better when I switched to 
liquid yeasts.  Although the Wyeast package says you can just pitch
directly from the package, my experience is that this is not a good idea and
a starter is absolutely necessary.  Why?  The number of yeast cells in the
Wyeast package is very low and results in an incredible under pitch which
can lead to very long lag times raising the risk of infection.  

> I had gotten a WYeast American Ale packet, and burst the inner packet 
> on Thursday evening.  Sure enough, by noon on Saturday it was nice and 
> puffy.  My 1043 wort was at 70F, and all was well with the

 ...snip

> ...wait for fermentation to begin, but lo! nothing happens and keeps on not
> happening until Monday morning.

It has been my experience that Wyeast is ready to pitch after about 24
hrs, sometimes less.  By the time the package is really puffed the 
yeast has gone way past high kraesen (sic?), and flocculated.  It's had a 
good meal and dozed off.  Pitching this means not only are you under 
pitching, but you are under pitching sleeping yeast that will need some 
time to wake up.  By using a starter you can pitch more cells and perhaps 
better time your pitch to occur just before high kraesen.  So I think that
a 48 hr lag time (Sat-Mon) is not unexpected.

Another thing to watch out for is that dry yeast is often contaminated 
with bacteria.  Reusing slurry from a dry yeast fermentation may allow the
bacterial population to build up to infection levels. 

Let me suggest that you download the yeast FAQ from sierra.stanford.edu to
get some guidance in propagating a yeast starter.

Liquid yeast is your friend.  You just have to treat 'em right.

Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
venezia at zgi.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 10:34:46 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick at michaelangelo.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Relax, Don't worry, ...

In 1251 jmp at shoe.wustl.edu related difficulties with Wyeast used
straight.  I remeber using Wyest straight and having 2 day lags, 
but so what?  If the system is clean there won't be any contamination.
The last thing I would do is worry and contaminate a $4 culture
with a 30cent sachet of microflora assortment.  And you'll 
develop plenty of slurry for a quick fermentation.  If using a 
Wyeast one should make a starter, and if it's a lager the starter
should be around a gallon.

Onanother note that I will refer to as Chicago time warp.  How
come a response from js appeared before the posting from Chris  C
to which it responded (in 1250)?
_____________________________________________________________________________
'Hey Ma'am! I'm not an athlete.  I'm a ball | Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       
player' - John Kruk, Phillies firstbaseman  | Dept of Chemical Engineering, 
responding to a woman who told him he was a | Notre Dame, IN 46556          
bad athletic role model sitting at a bar    |    ulick at darwin.cc.nd.edu   
drinking and smoking.                       |

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Liquid Yeast

Jerome Peirick writes:

Liquid Yeast: Friend or Fiend?
> 
> So far, a dull story.  But the reason for the post is that this the third time
> in four instances of liquid yeast use that this happened to me.  The questions
> I have are:
> 
> Why does this happen?  
> Why does liquid yeast seem so my less robust than dry?  
> Should this happen when I use the liquid yeast _as_directed_on_the_package?
> Should I just admit abject failure and use dry yeasts exclusively?  
> 
Jerome, this happens because you are (a) underpitching and (b) probably
under-aerating.  There is a fairly small quantity of yeast in the
package, which is why the general wisdom is that you need a starter.  A
starter (which is really very simple to put together and use) will get
the cell counts up to something approximating the correct number.  You
will never get counts like that simply pitching from the package.  Dry
yeasts generally have much higher counts, although the percentage of
viable cells in the packages isn't very high.  It is possible to get a
decent fermentation from the packet, but it's asking a lot, and it
requires a very fresh package and extremely thorough aeration of the
wort prior to pitching.

You should: follow the instructions on making a starter wort, and beging
the process of building up your yeast several days before brewing; and
you should shake the bejabbers out of your cooled wort (or follow some
more advanced instructions about using an aquarium pump to aerate -- see
Dave Miller's articles in Brewing Techniques).  You *will* see a
difference in the quality of your beer.  Really.

Scott Kaczorowski writes:

> If I remember my beer-lore correctly, I thought Big Jimmy O'Carter made
> homebrewing technically legal in this country (correcting an earlier
> oversight).  Being but a simple software engineer, my legal credentials
> are a good approximation of nil, but I thought federal law superceded
> state/local law.  That is, if the Feds say it's OK for me to manufacture
> certain kinds of drugs in my kitchen, then it doesn't matter one whit
> what Missouri or any other state has to say about it.  Yes?
> 
No.  State law supercedes federal law in this instance.  This is why
each state has been able to set guidelines for alcohol content, drinking
age, etc. (for example, in Oregon and Washington you can only buy
distilled beverages from state-operated liquor stores, while in nearby
California you can buy the stuff virtually anywhere).  On the other
hand, while the federal government prohibited homebrewing, the state
could *not* allow it.  Clear?  No?  Well, it doesn't make any sense to
me either.

- --Jeff Frane



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:41:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu>
Subject: Amylase

  ************************************************************
    > >When should Alpha Amalyse be used?
  
  >Thanks,Steve
  
  *   Amylase (sp!) is a combination of alpha and beta amylase.  Two 
  starchdegrading enzymes- diastatic enzymes.  Most commercial "amylase" 
  is actually diastase-  a mix of alpha and beta amylase.  The alpha cuts 
  the middle of enzymes (endo-) while beta chops off the ends (exo-). 
  Alphas are most active at 65-67 deg C, or 149-153 deg F.  Beta works
  at 52-62 deg C, 126-144 deg F. Alpha inactivates at 67 deg C (153),
  while beta ceases at 65 deg C(149).  
      These temps are not exact cutoffs and inactivation takes a period 
  of time (40 min-2hrs) to completely eliminate activity.  Both enzymes
  will be active simultaneously. A higher temp mash will result in more 
unfermentables (more complex sugars) by favoring the alpha activity, 
  whereas a lower temp will favor the beta and smaller more "digestable"
  sugars for the yeast.
  
      Amylases and other enzymes are present in pale malts (grains) and
  some other grains (munich, vienna...etc).  If you are mashing they
  are there and required for the process.  If you are using extracts
  you don't need to worry about them.  If you do a partial mash, or
  add something like flaked corn (NOT Kellogs!)  or rice you need to 
  have enzymes convert the starches to fermentable sugars.  For this
  you can use pale malt, or some purified amylase.  You can add amylase
  to a mash if you are not getting good yields- but probably better to
  work out a system that works more effectively!
      Someone mentioned using flaked corn in an extract beer and making 
  tea with it.  What is the point of that?  You are adding starch.
  Corn can lighten a beers body while adding fermentables w/o much color
  or substance,  but where is the advantage in an extract brew?
  Has anyone done this?  Does anyone have a REASON behind doing this?
  
      Hope some of this helps a bit.      John (The Coyote) Wyllie
                                              SLK6P at cc.usu.edu
  
  ***
  Kevin asks:
  
  >Why do you consider distilling to be dangerous?  There is an element 
of risk 
> involved with making anything.  (including fried chicken)  Distillers 
simply 
> take a fermented product and evaporate and condense the alcohol.
>  
> >Illegal?  Yes.  Dangerous?   Hardly.
> 
  *Can you say DEATH & BLINDNESS! Ethyl alcohol goes to a vapor within
  a specific temperature range ( I ain't gonna quote it!) while OTHER
  alcohols vaporize at different temps.  While ethanol won't do us any
  harm...well...maybe a little nausea in excess...a bit of a headache...
  some other alcohols, or components of a ferment could do some harm.
  If it's done right-  sure you can get a fine distilled product. I even
  tried one once- could've dropped it in a NA beer too, but I wanted to
  try it straight.  Tasty it was!  (peeka boo!)
      I don't have all the chemistry here to explain it...but there are
  dangers in distilling.  That is WHY there are real laws about it, and
  why those WILL be enforced, as depicted by such "fine" TV programs. 
  Look it up in a library.  Most universities will have something on it.
  
      "I can't see I can't see"      John (The Coyote) Wyllie
              "Why not?!"                SLK6P at cc.usu.edu
      "I got my eyes shut! Nyuck Nyuck"
  ******************************************************************


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 12:15:11 -0400 [EDT]
From: greg.demkowicz at circellar.com
Subject: WORT CHILLERS


There's been a lot of posts about what type and size of wort chillers to 
use, be it cold water bath, immersion, or counter-flow. Most counter-flow 
designs are based on a length of 3/8" copper tubing passing through the 
center of a garden hose. This is quite effective, but awkward to use.

So, here's a question for all you Thermodynamic type people: how effective 
would a 30 foot length of 3/8" diameter, coiled copper tubing, be in 
a 2 foot long, 4" inside diameter, PVC pipe?  Essentially, I want to place 
the coil inside the PVC, with the ends of the coil entering and exiting 
the capped ends of the PVC.  The cooling water would enter the capped 
ends as well, but counter-flow. The "coil" diameter would be about 3.5", 
resulting in a circumference of about 11". With each "coil" spaced about 
1/4" apart, the length would be about 2 feet.  Of course the length and 
size of the copper tubing can be altered, (the PVC diameter is the max. I 
can get) but, is the idea feasible? Any comments appreciated.

Greg

Return to table of contents


Date: 	Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:51:00 -0400
From: mike.sadul at canrem.com (Mike Sadul)
Subject: Hose vs copper tubing

Norm writes:
> I just bought a thick-wall polyethylene hose to run from my lauter
> tun to my boiler.  The hose I use now is a thin-wall vinyl hose
> which has a tendency to collapse when the hot liquor is flowing
> through it.

I was also concerned over the use of a plastic hose in the kettle
and the fact that the hose was close to the open flame of the
propane burner near the side of the kettle. Also, The hose flattened
out where it looped up before going into the kettle.

My solution was to use a length of 3/8 copper tubing inside the
kettle and attach the hose to that.

The top of the tubing has an S curve so that I can hang it on
the kettle itself.  It's a tight fit, so it doesn't fall out
if you accidentaly yank the hose.

The bottom of the tube is 1/4 inch off the bottom of the kettle.
This minimizes (eliminates) splashing of the hot wort as it flows
into the kettle.  The outside end curves back up so that the hose
coming in meets it straight on and doesn't droop and flatten out.

'Why I'm not an artist' ASCII graphics to follow:


                       Lid    __
                   ----------+--+--------            #
                   I                   /I\          # Plastic hose
                   I                  | I |        #
                   I                  | I /       #
                   I                  | I|      /
                   I                  | I \ __/ Copper tube
                   I                  | I
                   I                  | I
                   I    Kettle        | I
                   I                  | I
                   I                  | I
                   +--------------------+

Mike
mike.sadul at canrem.com

Return to table of contents


Date:         20 Oct 93 13:19:17 
From: REGINAH at SOCIOLOGY.lan.mcgill.ca
Subject:      Spruce Beer

    I just wanted to say a word in defense of spruce beer- I made a
batch using Papazian's recipe, with 1 oz of spruce essence, and it
was good.  Yes, it was odd, earthy even, but I grew up drinking the
soda versions of birch and spruce beer.  My spruce beer had similar
taste without the sugar.  It may be that spruce essences and extracts
are highly variable in quality.  For that matter, spruce trees are
probably variable in quality.  If anybody wants to know, I can check
up on the brand name of the essence I used.  If spruce beer sounds
interesting to you, don't be deterred.
                                    Regina Harrison
                                    McGill University
                                    reginah at sociology.lan.mcgill.ca




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:14:33 -0500
From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
Subject: HB law questions


Scott Kaczorowski says:
>my legal credentials are a good approximation of nil, but I 
>thought federal law superceded state/local law.  That is, if the 
>Feds say it's OK for me to manufacture certain kinds of drugs in 
>my kitchen, then it doesn't matter one whit what Missouri or any 
>other state has to say about it.  Yes?

Federal law supercedes state law except when it doesn't.  What they 
often do, and did in this case, was leave further regulation of 
brewing to the states.  ie: "Its OK for you to manufacture up to 
200 gallons of certain drug-containing beverages in your kitchen 
unless your local government objects, in which case you're stuck 
with the more restrictive regulations."  Funny how they can write  
whatever laws they want...

	t



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 13:50:00 EDT
From: mferts at taec.com (Mike Fertsch)
Subject: re: HB law questions

Scott Kaczorowski speculates on the Federal statue allowing homebrewing,
and questions Federal law superseeding local laws.

>If I remember my beer-lore correctly, I thought Carter made
>homebrewing technically legal in this country (correcting an earlier
>oversight). I thought federal law superceded state/local law.

My guess is that the law removed the Federal restriction on brewing.
This is not the same as saying the law grants permission to brew.
Without a Federal restriction, states and localities are allowed to
make their own regulations.  This is why dry towns and dry counties are
allowed to exist.

Mike Fertsch   (mferts at taec.com)

Return to table of contents


Date: 20 Oct 1993 10:19:18 -0800
From: John Scoblic <KFJLS at acad1.alaska.edu>
Subject: Spruce Beer

You guys are giving Spruce Beer a bad rap! I've been making it for four
years and have to keep it quiet that I have a new batch in the fermenter.
My friends hound me for a taste of the elixer. I use Papazian's recipe
with 4 oz of spruce tips picked from a Spruce tree (not hemlock) in the
spring added like hops (in the hops bag). I have NEVER had a bad batch
nor a sappy or any other off flavor. 																
I have never used essence. Being a purist, I think it poor style but I
would suggest just a hint of Spruce essence and then add more in future 
batches.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 12:17:10 MDT
From: npyle at n33.stortek.com
Subject: Hops FAQ nearly ready

The Hops FAQ is nearing completion but I have one sticking point.  I've used
IBU's so long that I can't recall the definition of HBU.  I looked up AAU in
Miller's and Line's books, and I have that.  Rager says the two are the same,
i.e.  AAU=HBU but Al Korzonas mentioned that he thought one of them was batch
size dependent, based on a 5 gallon batch (and that rang a bell with me).
According to Miller and Line, AAU is just the alpha acid percentage multiplied
by the weight in ounces.  This leaves HBU as being the batch size dependent one
if they are not the same.  This should be simple but I figured the quickest way
to get the answer to this would be here on the HBD.  Thanks for your input.
Expect to see this thing in the next few days.

Old Lucifer (the barley wine from hell that just won't quit!) update: OG=1.039
after 4 weeks.  At this rate I may bottle it before Christmas after all!

norm

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:22:47 -0500
From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
Subject: Liquid Yeast: Friend or Fiend?

Jerome Pierick asks in HDB #1251 (essentially) about yeast pitching 
rates, and the instructions on the Wyeast packages which say 
essentially that sufficient yeast cells for a five gallon batch are 
grown in 50 ml of wort.  He goes on to say he has experienced lag 
times exceeding 48 hours, and wants to know why this is versus the 
dry yeast he's been using.  Finally, he asks about repitching yeast 
grown from a dry yeast culture.

Well, I've used Wyeast as directed on the package and I experience 
lag times just like Jermome.  IMNSHO, the directions on the Wyeast 
package do a great disservice to homebrewers as well as the 
company.  Yes, it *will work* but its far from ideal.  According to 
various sources summarized by Patrick Weix in the famous HBD Yeast 
FAQ (what would we do without those TLAs?) says that you need 1 
volume of yeast solids per 250 volumes of wort for lager yeasts, 
and 2/3 that rate for ale yeasts.  This translates roughly to 2 
cups of yeast slurry in a five gallon batch of ale, or three cups 
in a batch of lager.  Compare this with the teaspoon or so you dump 
out of a Wyeast package.  When the term "yeast slurry" is used I 
thake this to mean the tan stuff that'll settle out of a wort after 
fermentation.  The Wyeast package contains about ten teaspoons of 
wort, but no where near that much yeast slurry.

Well, I rarely pitch at ideal rates.  Usually I step Wyeast up 
twice, using a pint of sterile wort each time.  This yields maybe 
1/2 cup of slurry.  Still a far cry from ideal, but much better 
than the package directions produce. Usually the beer is fermenting 
away the next morning.  When the planets are properly aligned, I 
sometimes pour a new wort on top of the yeast cake in my secondary 
fermenter to make a second beer.  This is much closer to the ideal 
pitching rate, and I get amazing fermentations when I do this. Very 
short lag times -- just a couple hours.

So, what's a brewer to do?  If you don't want to take the time to 
step your Wyeast up, and I can perfectly well understand why you 
wouldn't, you can follow the directions on the package, and 
thoroughly aerate your wort.  This works, and makes very tasty 
beer.  Just count on longer-than-ideal lag times.  This means 
you'll want to be scrupulous about sanitation.  Wear rubber gloves, 
use plenty o' bleach, and all that.  If you do these things I think 
any pure Wyeast or YeastLabs culture  will produce a better beer 
than any dry yeast I know of.  I keep a package of dry yeast around 
in case a wort isn't fermenting after 72 hours.  I used one once, 
and the beer was OK.  This is I think what Jerome is doing after 36 
 - 48 hours.

If you DO continue to use dry yeast, repitching is not recommended. 
ALL dry yeast is contaminated with wild yeast and bacteria.  But 
there's a lot more good yeast than contaminants, so the yeast 
effectively out-competes the other beasts for the goodies in your 
wort.  But the contamination is still there, and will increase in 
concentration with subsequent reuse of the culture.  The reason you 
see such short lag times is that there's lots more yeast in the dry 
package than in the Wyeast package.

Hope some of this helps...

 	t






Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 14:32:43 EDT
From: garti at mrg.xyplex.com (Mark Garti)
Subject: grain storage

what are people using to store their grain in?
how long, under good conditions, will the grain be
fresh?  besides rats, are there any problems associated
with buying and keeping 50 lbs of grain?
mrgarti at xyplex.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:41:00 EST
From: "Pamela J. Day 7560" <DAY at A1.TCH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Applejack/distilling

Hello All,
	Because freezing hard cider to make apple jack concentrates
the alcohol in the solution, a physical separation if you 
will, technically it's not a distillation. Distillation is used mainly  
to purify, as well as separate;concentrating the solution is a 
benificial side effect. Applejack is one of those things you can play 
dumb over, "jeeze I had no idea it would do that officer! I just 
wanted to keep it from going bad.". Any of you who have ever seen a 
"still" know that it obviously can't be passed off for anything else. 
However, I'm just a lowly research tech., not a lawyer (thank god!) 
so I can't quote laws, but as far as I'm concerned making apple jack 
wouldn't be illegal because you aren't doing any distillation. BTW, 
distilling hard cider would result in apple brandy, not that I wish 
to plant ideas into anyone's head.
	While I'm at it, I can see why cops & the law (especially 
the ones who haven't got a clue) would confuse homebrew apparatus
with distillation apparatus. Those of you who cool your wort with 
copper coils beware, they're the give-away as far identifying  
moonshiners! 

Cheers!

Pam

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Wade <ericwade at CLASS.ORG>
Subject: Homebrew and the law


COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu> writes:

>*also note:  Brewking sack ad in Sharper Image quotes:
>    "federal govert allows you to make up to 25 gallons of
>homemad beer each year.

<snip>

>Damn at 25 gal/yr I could be done brewing in 2 weeks!
>Too bad The Sharper Image doesn't have a Sharper grasp of the
>legality.

Correct.  Federal law allows for the production of 200 gallons
per year per household if there are 2 or more adults in the
household or 100 gallons/year if there is only one adult.

Scott writes:

>If I remember my beer-lore correctly, I thought Big Jimmy O'Carter made
>homebrewing technically legal in this country (correcting an earlier
>oversight).  Being but a simple software engineer, my legal credentials
>are a good approximation of nil, but I thought federal law superceded
>state/local law.  That is, if the Feds say it's OK for me to manufacture
>certain kinds of drugs in my kitchen, then it doesn't matter one whit
>what Missouri or any other state has to say about it.  Yes?

As a simple law librarian I can't program my way out of a paper
bag (well I might get that far, but maybe not) but I think I can
clarify this misunderstanding a bit.  The law that Carter signed
exempted homebrew (within limits, e.g. 200 gallons/household)
from excise taxes.  The oversight Scott refers to is that an earlier
law that exempted home winemaking from the excise tax did not do
the same for beer.

Now, exempting homebrew from excise taxes ain't quite the same as
providing a constitutional right to brew.  I guess that since many of our
founding fathers were brewers and nobody had threatened this right, they
didn't seem fit to include it in the Constitution.  This being the case, I
believe state goverments can pretty much do as they please.  On the other
hand, if the feds said homebrewing is illegal, the states couldn't say
otherwise.

=Eric <ericwade at class.org>



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:23:09 -0500 (UTC -05:00)
From: ROWLEY at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Belgian Special B  (Matthew Rowley)

Howdy, all.
	I've just snagged some Belgian Special B to use in an Irish red.
This will be the first time I've ever worked with the stuff, but look 
forward to it.  Does anyone have any experience using Special B? I thought
that I might put some into my next porter or stout, but would like to hear
from you if you've any suggestions on how/how not to handle this grain:
Temperatures, proportions, that sort of thing.

As to beer drinks: in college, we used to concoct "beer busters": one
can/bottle of commercial beer, one shot o' vodka, a spot of Tabasco:
viola! A beer buster! Looks nasty, tastes like beer, just a little hot.
Very soon after this, I started homebrewing. You draw the connection.
Perhaps explains why I want chilies away from my goddamned brewpot.  ;)

Matt Rowley
Dept of Anthropology
University of Kansas
rowley at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 17:18:40 EDT
From: gjsparks at aol.com
Subject: Alabama Laws

Some comments and questions in the HBD concerning whether
xhomebrewing is legal in all 50 states prompted me to investigate
the situation here (to borrow a phrase) in the beer wastelands of
Alabama.  According to Mr. Charles Ball of the Alabama Beverage
Control Board Enforcement Office in Montgomery:  1)  Homebrewing
is strictly illegal in the state of Alabama.  2)  Transporting
any alcoholic beverage into AL (as a personal citizen, not a
distributor, obviously) is strictly illegal;  distributors must
comply 
with all of AL's labelling and tax requirements.  3)
Distributors are prevented by law from importing any beer with
greater than 4% alcohol by weight (5% by volume).  4)  Commercial
breweries (microbreweries, brewpubs, et al.) must be built in an
historic building or historic district in which draft 
beer was
sold prior to Prohibition (??).

My personal impression is that they don't really care about
enforcing the homebrew laws (unless one were to try and sell it
or some other obvious violation).  This was the extent of the
information I got in the short conversation I had with Mr. Ball;
I am also interested in what the federal regulations are, and how
they interact with the state laws.  If anyone 
can provide me with
or direct me to this information, please e-mail me, or if it's
sufficiently interesting, post it here.  Maybe a compilation of
basic regulations for all 50 states could be created?  Thanks.

gjsparks at aol.com

Return to table of contents


Date: 20 Oct 93 17:46:57 U
From: "conley" <conley at macgw1.crd.ge.com>
Subject: How Bad is Bad Beer?

Hi Home Brewers,

I have just started Home Brew'n. I haven't even tasted my first batch yet. I 
have a couple of questions. (I apologize if they have already come up)

First, what kind of critters can invade a bad batch? What is the worst illness 
that you have heard of from drinking 'bad beer'?  I followed all the cleaning 
directions (B'Brite) and don't think any thing went wrong but just want to
know.

Second, what is a good McEwan's taste alike? I have had this beer and like it's

style.  

Happy Brew'n
Doug.

Douglas J Conley.  
GE Corporate Research & Development
conley at crd.ge.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 23:30:29 UTC+0100
From: "David S. Reher" <soso203 at sis.ucm.es>
Subject: Stores

Can anyone give me addresses for Homebrewing stores in Europe that 
serve mail orders? Thank You.

Antonio S. Reher.
Spain.

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1253, 10/23/93