Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1552
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 94/10/14 00:43:07
HOMEBREW Digest #1552 Fri 14 October 1994
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Homebrewing Survey (James Clark)
(commercial) construction update (Jim Sims)
AHA Stuff (John DeCarlo )
Federal Law on Homebrewing (John DeCarlo )
Mashing With Steam (Richard A Childers)
Wyeast 'optimum' temperature (Richard A Childers)
Dry yeasts ... Gary politely asks if he's missing something :-) (Chris Lyons)
charm, charm and beer (Jeff Frane)
Dry yeasts ... (Chris Lyons)
Holiday Cardamom Ale (M. Andrew Newman)
BAD!! comments on step mash wi (Bob_McIlvaine)
Re: EasyMashyer (Paul Ganci)
Yeast, extract and mashes (1551) (BrewerLee)
Legalities (Phil Duclos)
HBD Quality (npyle)
Shipping, mailers ("Ulick Stafford")
Zapap defended (again) (Nancy.Renner)
IBU's ("David Sapsis")
Wyeast 1338, Food Grade Plastics, Vinyl Beer (Keith Frank)
Steam (Pat Anderson)
******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@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@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from
sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via
mail from listserv@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@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 00:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Clark <jeclark@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Homebrewing Survey
hi everyone! i don't know if anyone remembers me, but i was an hbd'er
about six months ago. i then lost access tot he internet for a while,
but now i'm back. (stop groaning! :))
i am currently writing a research report on homebrewing and the brewing
industry. as part of my research i am distributing a 14 question
survey. if anyone would like to help out and take the survey, please
send me a message saying so and i will send the survey to you via
internet.
thanks a lot.
- --james
jeclark@ucdavis.edu
p.s. i have sent two messages to the hbd request adress asking to be re
SUBSCRIBE d to the digest, but have not yet received any response. if
this is the wrong way to subscribe, would someone please tell me the
correct way. tx.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 07:08:27 EDT
From: sims@scra.org (Jim Sims)
Subject: (commercial) construction update
The Charleston Beer Works' home page has moved - we kept getting
failed accesses due to teh mixed case name. You can now find them at:
http://www.sims.net/organizations/chasbeerworks/chasbeerworks.html
Check next week for updated prices, expanded entries, and special
offers.
jim
Disclaimer: None at all. I "operate" the SIMS Internet Mall at
http://www.sims.net/themall.html - Josh (CBW's owner) is a customer of
mine, I'm a customer of his. He's a good guy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 08:28:33 EST
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@homebrew.mitre.org>
Subject: AHA Stuff
>From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
>Phil writes:
>> I had hoped that someone like the AHA would smooth this process out with
>>UPS so that all homebrewers could ship their homebrew without hassle. Alas,
>>AHA is in the business of printing magazines not assisting homwbrewers.
>The AHA is in the business of running the National Competition, sanctioning
>homebrew competitions and organizing the National Conference. Zymurgy is in
>the business of printing magazines. Both are divisions of the Association of
>Brewers which includes a couple of other branches like Brewer's Publications
>and the Institute of Brewing Studies. There are a handful of paid employees
>in the AoB and all the rest of the work is done by volunteers. So...
Are you saying that the AHA has no paid employees? And why isn't the AHA in
the business of encouraging homebrewing/homebrewers? And if they are in the
business of running the National Competition, that means they are in the
business of making it possible to send entries.
I think you are avoiding the real issue, Al. The AHA isn't willing to step up
to almost any of the issues they reasonably should be addressing. And they
don't do that good a job of what they do, anyway. It doesn't matter whether
they are all paid or all volunteer or a mix. A more responsible organization
would do what they could to encourage homebrewing, whether it was just
encouraging AHA members to go on a letter-writing campaign, or actually
speaking out on issues directly. Not to mention lobbying.
It's a shame that the AHA has so much trouble with this concept--very few
other similar organizations (even those with fewer resources) have this kind
of problem.
John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 08:54:54 EST
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@homebrew.mitre.org>
Subject: Federal Law on Homebrewing
Kirk Harralson writes:
>When I spoke to the BATF about this, they said the law on home brewing
>specifically stated that it is legal for private consumption only, and should
>never be shipped out of the person's residence in the first place. He had
>never heard of a homebrew competition, and was not sure of their stance on
>it. Does anyone know how far the specific language "private consumption only"
>goes?
First of all, like the people at UPS and everywhere else, the people at BATF
don't usually have much of a clue about homebrewing. Of course they *think*
they do. However, there is a provision about "illegal removal", for which I
don't have any of the relevant text. It *does* sound chilling, though. Note
that at the end of these quotes, UNLAWFUL PRODUCTION specifically exempts
homebrewers, but UNLAWFUL REMOVAL doesn't. Hmmm.
Second, let me quote what it says in Federal law--this is from the tax code:
"(e) BEER FOR PERSONAL OR FAMILY USE.-- Subject to
regulations prescribed by the Secretary any adult may,
without payment of tax, produce beer for personal or family
use and not for sale. The aggregate amount of beer exempt
from tax under this subsection with respect to any
household shall not exceed--
"(l) 200 gallons per calendar year if there are 2
or more adults in such household, or
"(2) 100 gallons per calendar year if there is
only 1 adult in such household.
For purposes of this subsection, the term 'adult' means an individual
who has attained 18 years of age or the minimum age, if any, estab-
lished by law applicable in the locality in which the household is
situated for individuals to whom beer may be sold, whichever is
greater."
...
"(c) ILLEGALLY PRODUCED BEER.-- The production of any beer
at any place in the United States shall be subject to tax
at the rate prescribed in subsection (a) and such tax shall
be due and payable as provided in section 5054 (a) (3)
unless--
"(l) such beer is produced in a brewery qualified under the
provisions of subchapter G, or (2) such production is
exempt from tax under section 5053 (e) (relating to beer
for personal or family use)."
...
"(3) ILLEGALLY PRODUCED BEER.-- The tax on any beer
produced in the United States shall be due and payable
immediately upon production unless--
"(A) Such beer is produced in a brewery qualified under the
provisions of subchapter G, or "(B) such production is
exempt from tax under section 5053 (e) (relating to beer
for personal or family use).".
...
"SEC. 5674. PENALTY FOR UNLAWFUL PRODUCTION OR REMOVAL OF
BEER.
"(a) UNLAWFUL PRODUCTION.-- Any person who brews beer or
produces beer shall be fined not more than $1,000, or
imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, unless such beer
is brewed or produced in a brewery qualified under
subchapter G or such production is exempt from tax under
section 5053 (e) (relating to beer for personal or family
use).
"(b) UNLAWFUL REMOVAL.-- Any brewer or other person who
removes or in any way aids in the removal from any brewery
of beer without complying with the provisions of this
chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be
fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both."
John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 06:01:17 -0700
From: pascal@netcom.com (Richard A Childers)
Subject: Mashing With Steam
Jay Marshall <marshall#d#jay@ssdgwy.mdc.com> asks :
"I've got an old pressure cooker that no longer seals very well that I
thought might find new life in my brewery. BTW, does anyone know how
I could get a new seal for an old Presto pressure cooker?"
I, too, have an old Presto cooker that I cannot obtain new seals for.
I ended up going out and buying a new pressure cooker. And lots of spare
seals.
However, one of my little projects is to drill out the hole where the
seal was, and install a pressure gauge in its place. And, let's face it,
a pressure gauge is almost as good as a safety valve and in many ways a
lot better, provided you *watch* it.
So don't give up ... and don't throw away your Presto.
( And let HBD know if you find a source for seals. :-)
- -- richard
"I gathered I wasn't very well liked. Somehow, the feeling pleased me."
_Nine Princes In Amber_, by Roger Zelazny
richard childers san francisco, california pascal@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 06:05:18 -0700
From: pascal@netcom.com (Richard A Childers)
Subject: Wyeast 'optimum' temperature
William F. Cook <71533.2750@compuserve.com> asks :
"I've noticed that Wyeast publishes, along with their yeast descriptions, an
"optimum" fermentation temperature. Does anyone have any insight as to what
criteria are used to determine this "optimum" ?"
Well, they cultivate the stuff in laboratories ... we may assume that they
pay careful attention to the temperature of the cultures ... (-:
- -- richard
"I gathered I wasn't very well liked. Somehow, the feeling pleased me."
_Nine Princes In Amber_, by Roger Zelazny
richard childers san francisco, california pascal@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 09:12:55 EDT
From: Chris Lyons <Chris.Lyons@analog.com>
Subject: Dry yeasts ... Gary politely asks if he's missing something :-)
> What am I missing?. I hear all this about the trouble with liquid yeast,
> having to make a starter for it etc...
> I use the 1 pouch YEAST Lab brand of liquid yeast. I pop the inner bag
> about 1-2 days before pitching, it gets pregnant, I sanitize the bag
> surface, and pitch. No mess, no starter, no problem, great beer.
> Am I missing something, or is you're subject matter beyond the scope of
> this (my) text.
>
> Gary
Gary,
I think you may be missing something (other than your manners :-)). The
number of yeast cells provided in the Wyeast pouches is rather low! This
allows very little room for mishaps and/or lack of cleanliness. The
reason you what a high pitching rate is so that you can get the jump on
the wild yeasts that are present (and there will always be some present).
You can do this very well with two-to-three packages of dry yeast for
a cost of approximately $1.50. I would guess (... this is just a guess
based on previous experience) that you would need at least 6 Wyeast
packages to get the same jump on fermentation, at a cost of approximately
$24.00. The benifits of dry yeast are clear. Using dry yeast is far
cheaper for insuring proper pitching rates, and is much easier to use (no
poping packages and waiting 2 +/- 1 day to get the brew going). The question
always comes back to the quality of dry yeasts ... and this has improved
significantly over the last two years. IMHO, one of the major reasons that
dry yeasts have gotten such a bad rap is because they are the major choice of
beginners. Like many things, brewing improves with experience and acquired
good techniques. However, its easier to blame the results of the first few
batches on the use of dry yeast, rather than the lack of technique.
Regards & happy brewing,
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 07:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Frane <gummitch@teleport.com>
Subject: charm, charm and beer
>
Steve Elwood launches his HBD career:
>
> Here's an idea...let's discuss what the regulations are regarding the
> shipping of alcoholic beverages (specifically beer!) across state lines.
> Hello...is there anyone left out there who is actually still interested in
> what Jim-Bob Seersucker thinks about the internal policies and management
> decisions at UPS?! I mean the HBD has become a forum for any "puke" to
> either bash people who actually have valid brewing questions (although maybe
> not in the eyes of the wolves lurking the Internet), or spew there opinions
> (quite annoying) over, and over, and over adnauseam. (By-the-by this is my
> first post) Personally, I wish more people would fight the urge to interject
> their every thought into the "Once Enjoyable" HBD. Furthermore, what would
> make me absolutely ecstatic (as if anyone gives a sh*t) is if every message
> didn't end with the banner "Hoppy Brewing."
>
Venting, anyone?
Al Kornzonas writes:
>
> If this is important to you, then by all means volunteer to help the AHA
> smooth out the beer shipping process. The AHA is in the business of
> running the National Competition, sanctioning homebrew competitions and
> organizing the National Conference. Zymurgy is in the business of printing
> magazines. Both are divisions of the Association of Brewers which includes
> a couple of other branches like Brewer's Publications and the Institute of
> Brewing Studies. There are a handful of paid employees in the AoB and all
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the rest of the work is done by volunteers. So...
>
Could be time to check on this piece of "data". Of course, as a member
of the BofA, I was never to actually get any figures on this, but my
sense is that the AoB isn't quite as volunteer-driven as we like to
imagine. Certainly, shipping is a *big* issue related to the
competition and well behooves study by the AHA -- also, the AHA can
thrown muscle around and volunteers (who would have trouble representing
themselves as AHA) can't.
>
> I'll bet that back when Miller was writing his book, there were only
> pretty crappy crystal malts available to the homebrewer and maybe that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Once again, an odd assumption. I've been using British caramel malts
for years, well before Miller's book appeared, and there's nothing
crappy about them. American malts, now, well that's a different
story...
Kirk Harralson wrote:
>
> When I spoke to the BATF about this, they said the law on home brewing
> specifically stated that it is legal for private consumption only, and should
> never be shipped out of the person's residence in the first place. He had
never
> heard of a homebrew competition, and was not sure of their stance on it. Does
> anyone know how far the specific language "private consumption only" goes?
>
Just goes to show how helpful government employees can be. We had an
attorney research this a number of years back, and found that the
Federales were neutral on the subject; *states*, on the other hand, add
restrictions from time to time. In general, however, and bearing in
mind that not only am I not a lawyer but my tongue isn't bifurcated:
"private consumption" means you, your family and your friends in your
home, *and* legitimate tastings. In theory, at least in Oregon, you're
not even supposed to take your beer over to someone else's house.
However, the BATF and the OLCC have better (!) things to do with their
time (someone say Waco?). What they're *really* concerned about is the
notion that you might be selling your beer. Do that and it'll really
hit the fan.
- --Jeff (not a technical advisor for anyone!)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 10:09:58 EDT
From: Chris Lyons <Chris.Lyons@analog.com>
Subject: Dry yeasts ...
To hbd readers,
Sorry about the earlier crack regarding Gary's manners. I misread
Gary's posting. In re-reading it I understand that I misinterpreted
the context ... my apologies to Gary & the hbd readers.
Regards,
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 10:19:04 -0400
From: laszlo@helix.nih.gov (M. Andrew Newman)
Subject: Holiday Cardamom Ale
Greetings to the Digest Crew!
This is my first posting after months of being a silent interloper.
A few weeks back someone posted a request for spiced "holiday" brews.
Well, here is an extract recipe that I found delightful...
Laszlo's Curmudgeonly Cardamom Ale
0.5 kg crystal malt
1.5 kg Laaglander light dried malt extract
1 can Cooper's (Australian) Bitter Ale Extract (hopped)
50 g Kent Goldings hop pellets(boiling)
25 g Fuggles hop pellets (finishing)
2 Tbsp cardamom seeds, without husks (last 10 min of boiling)
2 pkg ale yeast
500 ml dark molasses (for bottling)
Put grains in a large Ziploc bag and coarsely crack them. Add grains to
6 L cold water, heat to 75oC, and simmer 15 min. Pour through a strainer
into 6 L water in a new container, heat to boil, then add malt extracts and
boiling hops. Boil 45 min, then add the finishing hops and cardamom.
Add wort to 8 L cold water in cleaned and sterilized 20 - 28 L fermentor.
Possibly my best creation yet, although it required patience.
A good amber color, well-hopped and wonderfully carbonated. Initially,
the cardamom gave an extremely unpleasant bitter aftertaste (actually,
it smelled like PUKE!) that eventually mellowed into a delicious flavor after
2 months in the bottle. Brew it now, and it'll be just ready for Christmas!
Peace.
Drew
laszlo@helix.nih.gov
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 09:59:08 EDT
From: Bob_McIlvaine@keyfile.com
Subject: BAD!! comments on step mash wi
Rich Webb sez:
> ....read article in BT...
>Essentially, one must vent steam under pressure into the mash. The rest is
>detail. I have a pressure cooker that has a stem on top. This is usually
>where the small weight for increasing the pressure goes. For steam
>injection,
>***** a hose of some sort must be clamped onto this stem.***
> This would....
This is ***absolutely***!!!!! a bad idea and is NOT what was recomended
the article in BT suggested.
The weight is used to regulate the pressure,block
that hole that the weight sits on and you'll either
pop the safty valve on the p-cooker or if it's blocked
you'll stand a chance of a steam explosion.
Believe me, you don't want to see flesh after a
super heated steam explosion. It makes the guy
with the stitches from his broken carboy seem
like a childrens story.
Mac
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 10:29:15 EDT
From: Paul Ganci <Paul.Ganci@analog.com>
Subject: Re: EasyMashyer
Hello Everyone,
Cliff asks:
>
> I was wondering if anyone out there has tried an EasyMasher by Jack
> Schmidling Productions. James Spence in the Summer 1994 issue of Zymurgy
> seemed to give it a pretty favorable review. I was wondering what the opinion
> of other brewers was. Are the comments made in the review accurate?
>
>> These first runnings were incredibly clear. In fact not a single particle
>> of grain >was visible. I was truly amazed at this efficiency.
>> The straining system is so efficient it is unnecessary to be overly
>> concerned about a properly set grain bed, channeling of the grain or a set
>> mash.
>
> Does the EasyMasher work well enough to minimize if not eliminate the need to
> recirculate the wort? What size mash-tuns do you use with it? What are the
> impressions of users out there in homebrew land? Please e-mail privately, I
> don't want to start a bunch of hoopla over acertain product, I am just
> curious and thinking about buying one.
I currently own 2 EasyMashers: one in my 7 Gallon Gott Cooler for
mash lautering and one in my 8 Gallon brewpot for hop/hot break removal.
I will say that I am quite pleased by them (BTW I have no interests in Jack
Schmidling Productions ... I'm just a satisfied customer). I have found that
I must still recirculate some of my initial mash runnings, but for the most
part I only need to collect ~2cups worth before I have crystal clear wort. I
still take care, however, in attempting to get a reasonably set grain bed
despite the efficiency of filtering of the EasyMasher. Typically I will get
~30pts yield from my mashes.
I have only ever had 2 problems and both were more or less
self-inflicted (keep those loaded guns away from one's toes). The EasyMasher
is very easy to clean. Simply undo the screw on the clamp which holds the
filter screen in place. I usually take this screen off and boil it. This is
great as long as you remember not only to put it back onto the copper tube, but
tighten the clamp screw! Well, guess what I forgot to do!? This error plugged
the EasyMasher spigot and tube ... took quite a while to get the junk out.
The only other problem occured in my brew pot. I used Perle pellets (the local
supply place didn't have anything else). The screen on the EasyMasher became
completely embedded with hop residues/hot break material. If you choose to
use one of these devices in your brew pot I recommend you use only whole hops
or hop plugs.
Finally, I discovered that our local hardware store will sell me the
parts necessary to build an EasyMasher for ~1/2 the price Jack will sell you
one (sorry Jack). However, I for one believe their is some usefulness for the
U.S. Postal service ... even if they won't ship homebrew!
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 10:49:48 -0400
From: BrewerLee@aol.com
Subject: Yeast, extract and mashes (1551)
Gary Dubovic asks about yeast:
> What am I missing?. I hear all this about the trouble with liquid yeast,
> having to make a starter for it etc...
> I use the 1 pouch YEAST Lab brand of liquid yeast. I pop the inner bag
> about 1-2 days before pitching, it gets pregnant, I sanitize the bag
> surface, and pitch. No mess, no starter, no problem, great beer.
Some of us maintain our own cultures on agar slants. I have 21 cultures for
various styles in my fridge (YeastLab has 17 I belive). When coming up from
a slant, the starter is a two-step process, the first for 10 ml, the second
up to 500 ml.
The smak-pacs you use are fine, but you will realize even better results by
pitching that into a starter (5 TB DME in 2-1/2 cups water, boil for 5 mins
and cool) and allowing that to come into full krauesen before pitching.
Technically, the amount you pitch from a smak-pak isn't enough, especially
for a lager but good sanitation practices minimize the problems.
What you are doing is still far and away better than dry, there is still
someplace to make it better.
************
John Keane posted concerns about:
> I noticed that the top and
> bottom of all four cans on the shelf were bulging slightly outward, as
> though the contents were under pressure. The cans were all before
> their marked expiration date.
The contents are under pressure. It seems that as extract gets older it
crystalizes and this seems to liberate gas of some sort. I don't think it is
infection of any kind.
Besides, you boil anyway, right. I think the worst thing that could happen
is you get a sour-mash... not at all innapropriate for a stout. :)
Nah, don't worry, just open it slow to allow it to escape without splattering
you.
******************
Tom Parent expressed concern about his pumpkin ale:
> I'm concerned that when I
> dumped the beer off the top of the carboy, I dumped most of the still
active
> yeast along with it. Can this happen?
It technically could, but I don't think so. It's probably about fermented
out. Let it sit and check the SG in a day or so if there is no activity.
*************************
Jim Busch queries:
> On another topic. What types of "plastics" are food grade? We need
> to construct a large hop bag for dry hopping and are interested in the
> types of poly_xxx , etc that qualify as food grade.
I think that the numbers relate to the recycling process in some way, but I
coud be way off an that one.
Food grade is a plastic that has not been recycled, new plastic if you wiil..
That's the way I understand it anyway.
********************
Erik A. Speckman writes:
> I only sparged until I collected about 4.5
> gal. but I still got about 30 pts. per pound of grain.
I don't think you undersparged. .032 points per pound is about all I get in
my system and that has been optimized. Nobody (except for Dave Miller) gets
.035 pts/lb! :)
As long as I'm replying to your post:
> Good Brain Doesn't Suck
What does theat mean?
-Lee Bussy
lee.bussy@twsubbs.twsu.edu
BrewerLee@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 09:01:50 MDT
From: pjd@craycos.com (Phil Duclos)
Subject: Legalities
Kirk -
Did you find out what paperwork is required to set up alcohol shipments
with UPS? Would you be at all interested in helping to get the AHA and UPS
to see eye to eye on homebrewers shipping beer in those states where its
legal? I realize that people are going to ship whatever they like to wherever
they like in flagrant violation of both state and federal laws. Nothing we
do will stop this. But maybe we can find a way to do it legally for folks
shipping to competitions, etc.
I expected that you would encounter a great deal of confusion within
UPS. I did. Its a shame. I do understand the counter personnel's attitude,
however. It sure would be nice to have a handful of paperwork to hand them
to make them happy and accept my shipment, however. UPS may not be interested
in the business, but if a way could be found to smooth out the wrinkles I'm
sure most homebrewers would ship UPS.
The BATF is a poor source of information. Yes, they are in the enforcement
business and can make life extremely difficult for you, but they aren't
lawyers or judges and, in spite of whatever action they take, its the courts
who decide. I'll see what other sources of info I can find.
Had a visit from the Colorado State Liquor Board at our homebrew club
planning meeting. It seems that until this spring there was no provision
in the state law which would allow homebrew competitions to be legal. So
the AHA National conventions held in Denver and the State Fair, etc
were all illegal. Bummer. It seems that we have now been brought to the
attention of the legislature and enforcement agencies. I expect the scrutiny
to increase. It now becomes more important for organizations auch as homebrew
clubs to pay attention to the law as the organizers may be held liable if
they get caught.
For those of you who reside outside California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois,
Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin, perhaps you should approach your
state legislature with a proposal to exempt homebrewers from the ban on
interstate shipment of alcohol and consumption during competitions. Making
yourself known to the powers that be is hazardous, but a big media scandal
about lawless activity would do the same and prejudice your case. I would
expect more scrutiny anyway as homebrewing becomes more popular.
I am sorry if this topic is boring you or you feel that its not applicable
to the HBD. I am NOT a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. If there is a
dark side to homebrewing it is the casual attitude that we have towards the
law. The enforcement people aren't stupid and as we become more visible they
will be out looking for violators. Being aware of the laws and working to
change them ahead of time sure beats arrest records, lawyers fees, fines
and jail time. Ignorance is not a defense.
Phil Duclos
pjd@craycos.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 9:01:37 MDT
From: npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM
Subject: HBD Quality
Steve Elwood, in his first ever post writes:
>.......................I mean the HBD has become a forum for any "puke" to
>either bash people who actually have valid brewing questions (although maybe
>not in the eyes of the wolves lurking the Internet), or spew there opinions
>(quite annoying) over, and over, and over adnauseam. (By-the-by this is my
>first post) Personally, I wish more people would fight the urge to interject
>their every thought into the "Once Enjoyable" HBD. Furthermore, what would
>make me absolutely ecstatic (as if anyone gives a sh*t) is if every message
>didn't end with the banner "Hoppy Brewing."
Nice job. This is the closest thing I've seen to real flamebait since the
MALT Prez told us we're wasting his time. Over in the college football group
they call this fishing, and well, you caught me. Congratulations. My real
point is that I've been really impressed with the content of the HBD for
the past couple weeks. It has its problems, but in the past week alone we've
discussed:
Dry vs. Liquid Yeast
New method of step mashing with heat exchanger
Over/under Pitching
Open vs. Closed Fermentation
Heat capacities as they relate to strike temperatures
Hop Moisture Content
Filtering air/oxygen for wort aeration
Safety issues with carboys
Building a roller mill
Converting water heaters for the homebrewery
Homebrew Competitions
Look at that list and tell me we're a bunch of "pukes" "spewing" all over
your tube. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the group for the
lively and intelligent discussions we've had recently, even though Steve
doesn't seem to like it.
Norm
npyle@hp7013.ecae.stortek.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 10:17:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ulick Stafford" <ulick@ulix.rad.nd.edu>
Subject: Shipping, mailers
Hmm, shipping homebrews has reared its ugly head with some concern over
the ridiculous laws the USA has over alcoholic beverages. It is hardly
a surprise that shipping alcohol isn't a bureaucratic mess. Anyone who has
noticed the way alcohol retail laws vary so much for state to state
should not be surprised. It is all part of the attitude many in this
country have to alcohol in general. Doctors go out of the way when
questioned on the subject of 2 drinks a day being a health benefit, to say
that people should not drink alcohol (despite a Danish study that says
up to 5 a day is moderate), packaging carries stuff about pregnant women
that I never heard in Europe - moderation being recommended there (no I
do not want any responses on this point. I've had 'em all before). And
then there is the 21 drinking age which is strictly enforced (here anyway),
etc. Having said that, the USA isn't alone in having silly alcohol
laws and attitudes. In my country, Ireland, there is a ridiculously early
closing time, and high excise taxes, and difficult licensing laws. And
no one has every really explained Ontario laws to me.
Oops, digression. As for shipping, I shipped once from the UPS office in
South Bend to the Chicago national site, said I was shipping homebrew and
they took it without a batted eyelid. I usually ship from a package drop
off which costs 50cents more for the convenience - it is on campus, and they
never ask what is in the package, just its value.
Re John Wyllie's (Coyote) mailer problem (not being able to scroll back to get
the email address of someone without a sig), I suggest users of elm (on UNIX
boxes) to use less as the reader instead of the builtin. Saving hbd files
in a mail file seems like unnecessary disk space use.
__________________________________________________________________________
'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s@&* ... | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng.
Pabst Blue Ribbon!' | Notre Dame IN 46556
http://ulix.rad.nd.edu/Ulick.html | Ulick.Stafford@nd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 11:19:28 EDT
From: Nancy.Renner@um.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Zapap defended (again)
(From *Jeff* Renner)
First, a definition, since our jargon can throw off beginners. A Zapap,
first described in print by Charlie Papazian (as far as I know), is a lauter
tun made up of one food grade plastic bucket nested in another. The inner
one has a gazillion small hole drilled in the bottom (false bottom), and the
outer one has a tap. My improvements are described below.
BrewerLee (Lee Bussy) replies to Gregg's low gravity problem:
>The Zap-pap system, while OK for partial mashes, has it's limitations >as a
lauter tun. The increased deadspace unter the first bucket, lack >of
insulation and size all contribute to low yield mashes.
I have not found the above problems to be true, especially if you make a few
improvements on Charlie's original design. First, let me say that there are
lots of good mash/lautering setups - insulated Gotts, cut off Sankeys, etc.
with EMs, manifolds, PhalseBottoms, and whatnot. They all have their
advantages, and we often like best what we have and defend it as best. The
Zapap is no more the best for everyone than any other, but it's cheap and
efficient. I've been using one for 15 years and get 30 points*gallon/lb
since switching to a MaltMill. Before that, I used a Corona and got about 3
or 4 points higher extract, but runoffs were slower and occasionally stuck.
I'm sure that if I slowed my runoff to where it was with the Corona, I'd
recoup the loss, but I'd rather go for the one gallon per six minutes I get
(and that's with the stopcock open only halfway).
About capacity. It depends on how much capacity you need. By caulking
between the buckets (food grade caulk only, please), you can fill a Zapap
made with five gallon buckets with as much as 13 pounds of grains with more
than 1 quart of mash water per pound. Six gallon buckets are available.
This caulking also keeps you from pulling air through the gap with less
grain, which is why I first did it. The 13 pounds gives me 7.5 gallons at
1.052 to ferment in my Sankey or 6.75 gallons at 1.058 for a 7 gallon
carboy. That's as much as I can handle on a stovetop. If I want a stronger
beer, I can't use more than five gallons anyway, so I can get 1.077. For a
barley wine, I'll ferment in a three gallon carboy.
Insulating it is possible (and desirable). I have found that the bottom of
the Styrofoam shipping container for a 7 gallon carboy works beautifully.
(St. Pat's was selling these (the carboys) for $11 plus shipping, around $6
to Michigan). Sometimes I throw a small blanket over the top. Once it is
preheated and filled with mashed-off grain, the Zapap holds the temperature
perfectly. To preheat it, I fill it with near boiling water and run it out.
This drops the water to ~180^F, about right for sparging.
Finally, dead space under the false bottom. This can be reduced by about
half by cutting off the bottom ring on the inner bucket. But as I've posted
here before, what's the problem? Unless you are trying for maximum SG from
your first runnings (like for a barley wine followed by a small beer with
second runnings), just treat this dilute first runoff as your first sparge
water and add it back to the top. By the time I've recirculated for clarity
and then run off three or four gallons, I'm sure that I've extracted the
same as if I had no dead space.
I think Gregg needs to look elsewhere for his low extract. As I suggested
in a private e-mail, first he ought to check his hydrometer. Then
techniques. It's a poor carpenter that blames his tools.
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor c/o nerenner@umich.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 09:48:04 CST
From: "David Sapsis" <dbsapsis@nature.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: IBU's
Norm (HBD 1551) disagrees with my statement about the voracity of using
estimates of IBU's in homebrewing for cross-comparisons. He makes some valid
points about information content, and my use of the word "meaningless". Yes
in the context of added information, this is a poor word choice. However, let
me expand on my meaning.
First, how often are homebrewers reports of IBU's prefaced by the word
"estimated"? Second, how often is the formula used to obtain that estimate
also stated? With published ranges of full-kettle, moderate gravity,
utilization rates ranging from 20 to 30%, there is a whole lot of
variability that could account for my estimate being a whole lot different
that your estimate using the same quantity of hops. I have it on good
authority that the commercial brewing industry and the Davis Program
maintain that the only way to determine utilization rates is by direct
measurement. Most homebrewers do not do this. Rather, they rely on
published standards for estimation, or better yet, do comparisons with known
standards from measurement (i.e., comparing my beer with x grams/L boiled
for 60 minutes with commercial beer of measured y IBU's). I have found that
most rely on the former method, and I believe that my experience has shown
that actual utization does vary quite a bit. The problem of trying to
determine which factors are causal in utilization are confounded by
interactions amongst the variables (e.g., yeast characteristics, wort
composition, fermenter geometry, hop type, hop bag yes/no, use of
secondary, fining agents used, etc.) It is very difficult to control for
any single one of these variables when comparing across breweries. Hence,
it is my belief that comparisons of bitterness are best relegated to within
your own brewery, at least until a relatively accurate estimate of
utilization can be obtained. And as soon as you change one of the major
factors influencing utilization, you're previously valid estimation routine
has to be reformulated. For me, who is constantly changing yeasts, mashing
schedules, primary ferment temps, etc., it is not surprising that my
apparent utilization (as estimated in my mouth) is constantly changing. I
have done a lot of mouth calibration, and I think I can estimate within 5
IBU's or so (at least between the 10 and 40 IBU range), so this is what I
use to estimate actual bitterness. I assume when norm says that he is close
to his target 30 IBU, this is how he figures this out as well. Now if you
are actually measuring IBU's and comparing them to estimates, and you find
them to work (as Al K. posted for one beer), then great. I just do not
believe that this will work across a large variation of styles and methods
in a single brewery, let alone between different breweries.
That said, I did not mean to imply that ball-park estimates are not a good
piece of information to be transferred. Yes norm, I too would choose B.
However, given the apparent lack of standardized equations for IBU's, I
guess what I meant to say is that some actual measure of hops used when is
best of all. The AAU measure is like this, however, its main problem is no
standarization of per unit volume, and it only applies to full boil
additions. I have employed a similar measure, whereby I multiply the grams
added times the reported alpha content for a standardized 40 L batchsize.
For instance: 100 g of 5 alpha gives 500 (SBU if you will). Using an
assumed utilization of 25%, this would yield about 31 IBU. The deal is, I
believe, (again, by taste measures alone) that this can actually result in
something like 25-40 IBU. Maybe that does constitute ballpark, but
certainly no better than the AAU does if you know how much volume it
pertains to. In many of my beers I have gone away from mid kettle additions
to try to get a handle on how well SPU's work, and what is influencing them.
For instance, at least for me, I do not get significant drops in apparent
utilization in very high gravity beers. I have repeatedly over-bittered my
barleywines assuming poorer utilization than I am apparently getting.
However, it would appear (though not always the case) that I tend to get
better utilization than expected from even the most liberal of estimators.
For those of you who tend to repeat proceedures and recipes, maybe a single
equation will work well, and it might even be Ragers. If it does, go ahead
and relay the information. Tell us how you came by your results. I will go
on working up my data, trying to see if I can gain something better than
"ballpark".
- --Chukkah heyo
dave
**********************************************************************
David Sapsis dbsapsis@nature.berkeley.edu
Wildland Fire Research Laboratory
Dept. Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
U C Berkeley voice: (510)642-8053 fax:(510) 643-5438
"From fire everything is created, and in
fire everything ends up."
--Heracleitus (502 B.C.)
************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:14:56 -0500
From: keithfrank@dow.com (Keith Frank)
Subject: Wyeast 1338, Food Grade Plastics, Vinyl Beer
*** From Bruce DeBolt ***
Barry Nisly asked about Wyeast 1338 - my experience has been the same, this
yeast just keeps going, going, going. I've only used three Wyeasts - 1338,
1056, and the English Ale (can't remember number). English Ale goes like
crazy and is finished in 2-3 days, 1338 takes a long time and 1056 is in
between. I make about a 2 cup starter for each batch.
Jim Busch asked about food grade plastics. I know of one source for
information (there are probably other regulations as well). They are listed
on pages 202-203 in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21, part 177. There
are two lists - one for ".. Single and Repeated Use Food Contact Surfaces"
and a shorter one for "Substances for Use Only as Compontents of Articles
Intended for Repeated Use". The list is way too long for me to type and
many plastics probably wouldn't be suitable for beer anyway. Perhaps someone
else in HBD-land has a practical list. The FDA regs list chemical
descriptions, not commercial names.
On a similar vein I recently bought some (siphon) tubing from a local
hardware store with a disastrous result. I made sure it was FDA grade
tubing, very similar to the one I had bought before at a homebrew supply
store, but slightly larger in diameter with a thinner wall. It
was easier to get on and off the racking cane and appeared to be a perfect
substitute. I washed it with soap and hot water, rinsed, and sanitized
with iodophor as usual. When I bottled my beer, which tasted fine in the
fermenter, there was a sickening, new flavor that greeted my tastebuds. I
had created Vinyl Cream Ale. After three weeks in the bottle it still has
that wonderful plastic flavor. It tastes just like the tubing smells, and
just like the new shower curtain. Kind of like water tastes out of a
garden hose, with hops and malt thrown in. If you like looong, sustained
flavor, I've got two cases of it.
Lesson - not all FDA grade plastics are flavor neutral, although they may
be "safe". Stick to what you know, or give it a good sniff test first.
Bruce DeBolt
c/o keithfrank@dow.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 00:56:00 -0800
From: pat.anderson@f52.n343.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Anderson)
Subject: Steam
From: Richard B. Webb <rbw1271@appenine.ca.boeing.com>
>Essentially, one must vent steam under pressure into the mash. The rest is
>detail. I have a pressure cooker that has a stem on top. This is usually
>where the small weight for increasing the pressure goes. For steam
>injection, a hose of some sort must be clamped onto this stem. This would
This is probably not the safest way to go...leave the stem for
the weight, it is your pressure regulator. You want the pressure
to stay under 5 psi. You should have both a pressure regulator
and a safety plug that will blow out if the stem for the weight
gets clogged (it won't with just water of course). I went
through the pressure cooker lid with a bulkhead fitting, to a
short nipple, an ell and finally a draincock with a flare
fitting. The mash tun has a draincock with a flare fitting. The
steam travels through about 5' feet of flexible copper tubing
with a flare nut on each end. I have brewed with this, and it
works like a dream...(You may taste the most recent beer - in in the Bros.
Novembeerfest). Vent the air from the cooker and the
tube by blowing steam through for several minutes before
attaching to the mash tun, and yes, you have to use pot holders
to handle the tube, or maybe wrap the whole length in some kind of
insulation (thinking about this). I would not "stir the mash with
steam" asyou suggested, just use it to go through your temperature
program. Until I get a RIMS, this is the next next best way to
do it.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1552, 10/14/94
*************************************
-------
