Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1683
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/03/18 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1683 Sat 18 March 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
HOMEBREW DIGEST #1678 (MA (Paul Bourret)
Using mineral salts in extract beers (David Draper)
Offline Reader (richard gibb)
gypsum and extracts (Mark Evans)
Re: bitter brew, starter kits (PatrickM50)
Re: $0.30 Beer Engines (RWaterfall)
Gypsum use in Extract Brewing (Jim Dipalma)
Re: Beer Engines (c-amb)
Long Big-gravity Ale Ferment ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
perceived bitterness (Bryan L. Gros)
Water analysis (ITSI)
Maillard/Gypsum/Glycogen (A. J. deLange)
AFCHBC Results (Dion Hollenbeck)
******************************************************************
* 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.
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
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 20:12:00 GMT
From: paul.bourret@swamplands.com (Paul Bourret)
Subject: HOMEBREW DIGEST #1678 (MA
BB> Anyways I'm pretty sure I adapted my ale from a CatsMeow extract
BB> recipe that used a quart of syrup. If anyone is interested, private
BB> email me for the recipe. Since it takes between 30 and 50 gallons
BB> of sap to make 1 gallon of syrup, I figure I was using the equiv of
BB> a pint of syrup. This provided just a hint of maple flavor and
BB> aroma. If you didn't know it was there you might miss it. It
BB> tasted a little harsh at first, but it was a somewhat strong brew
BB> that aged well. I just had the last one last week and it had a nice
BB> rich mouthfeel and a creamy head.
I have an extract recipe that calls for 12 oz of maple syrup and 3.3
lbs of extract (pick your favorite) and have had the same experience....a
very subtle, almost smokey flavor in the back ground. MAde for a nice
light bodied beer for the summer.
Geez, you've just made me very thursty.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Bourret | "Life's to short to drink
West Newfield, ME | bad beer."
Bourret@cris.com |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* RM 1.3 02833 * * RM 1.3 01256 * Why experiment on animals with so many law
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 22:06:39 +1000 (EST)
From: David Draper <ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Subject: Using mineral salts in extract beers
Dear Friends, there have been a few posts lately about using mineral
salts (e.g. gypsum) in making extract beers. It has always been my
impression that the reason salts are added is for their effect on the
*mashing* process, which makes using them in an extract beer a useless
exercise. I realize that under certain circumstances particular salt
contents can affect hop utilization and flavor (e.g. sulphates in soft
water for pils beers), and this might be useful if using extracts. Other
than that, I can't see why extract beers need mineral additions.
Comments?
Well here I was all set to make some jokes about Jeff Renner getting his
own name on his "From:" line, and he goes and makes them all before I can
get to it. Sheesh, some people. :-}!
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
- --
"Never trust a brewer who has only one chin" ---Aidan Heerdegen
******************************************************************************
David S. Draper, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109
Sydney, Australia. email: david.draper@mq.edu.au fax: +61-2-850-8428
....I'm not from here, I just live here....
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:43:55 +0500
From: rogibb@inforamp.net (richard gibb)
Subject: Offline Reader
After lurking for a few months and reaping the
benefit of all the great knowledge out there(and my Muntons
Bitter is in the primary) I did some surfing. A while ago
there was a post from someone looking for an off-line
reader and as the posts are getting rather extensive I came
across a new reader called Free Agent.
It is indeed freeware and very easy to install. The
program and details are available from
<URL:http://www.forte.com/forte/btbeta.htm> (beta page)
<URL:http://www.forteinc.com/fort/> (home page)
I have just begun to use it and found it very easy to work
with. I am newer to computers than I am to brewing!
Sorry I can't find who was looking for it but hope this is
of some use to others also.
Richard
rogibb@inforamp.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:08:05 -0600
From: evanms@lcac1.loras.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: gypsum and extracts
a recent note mentioned a case where a fellow made Toadspit stout and ended
up with battery acid after adding oads of gypsum. I wondered...
Wouldn't the source of an extract affect the amount of minerals in it? If
it was produced in England, say, might it be "harder" than one made where
the water was softer...after all it is most;ly water -- local water. Or
are they neutralized before hand?
I personally find gypsum to "dry out" my beers too much -- even though I
have relatively soft water on tap. I like 'em smooth....
Brewfully, mark
=========================================================
"I do a lot of different things.
I just can't remember what they are right now."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:55:25 -0500
From: PatrickM50@aol.com
Subject: Re: bitter brew, starter kits
Patrick Humphrey ask about the initial bitterness in his SN Pale Ale clone
and wonders if it's due to the late Cascade addition. I made a Cal. Common
with 1 oz of Cascade (5.5%) added for the last 5 minutes and the first bottle
(after only 2 weeks in the bottle aging) was so bitter I actually poured the
second half of it down the drain! (I can drink the FIRST half of ANYTHING!)
After 4 weeks it was drinkable however, and after 6 weeks it is right fine
indeed!
So Patrick, as a stranger in a strange land once said, "Waiting is."
Also Pat, "%Utilization" in the Hop formula refers to *hop* utilization
(largely a function of boil time with a correction for Original Gravity) not
*extract* utilization. BTW, what was the SRM or Lovibond (color) rating on
the Caramel malt? Let me know how it turns out.
And no need to apologize for the questions, that's the point of the HBD. But
long fancy German signoffs just waste bandwidth!
>>>>>>>>>>
Bryan B. asks for a good starter kit. I would suggest getting whatever kit
your local homebrew store has available and adding to it as you gain
experience. If they don't have a ready-made kit they still should be able to
put one together for you from stuff in the store. The more you support your
local store the more they can support you in return. Besides, most starter
kits will cost you about $70 - $85 no matter where you get it and you'll save
on freight by buying locally. Just my opinion.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:58:36 -0500
From: RWaterfall@aol.com
Subject: Re: $0.30 Beer Engines
Jeff Renner writes:" So here's what I
do. I keep carbonation a little high for style, then use a syringe (no
needle) and suck up ~10 cc of beer, then shoot it back with a quick push
of the plunger. I keep the tip above the surface of the beer, thereby
introducing some air, too. Some authorities believe that dissolved air
is responsible for some of the qualities of real ale. This produces the
same swirling, milky mass of tiny bubbles as a beer engine. They soon
settle into a creamy, long lasting head and a creamy mothfeel, due to
the low carbonation."
This reminds me of something Guinness marketed briefly around 1980. With
your 6-pack you rec'd a small syringe (it's been awhile but I would say <2cc)
with a restricted end that you used to generate the head. I don't remember
if you were supposed to inject air or beer. It was better than what you got
from pouring from the bottle but not as good as the current Pub Draft cans.
They also were difficult to keep clean. Pack rat that I am, I should see if
I still have one floating around. BTW another source for a syringe is
kitchen gadget stores. They're sold as food injectors that you use for
injecting fruit juices (or other liquids ;^)) into meats before roasting for
added flavor. They probably cost quite a bit more than the oral syringes
since they are a gourmet cooking item. (The old "It can't be any good unless
it costs a lot" syndrome). I hadn't thought of it until I saw Jeff's post,
but I think I'll try it on some Stout when I get home.
Slainte,
Bob Waterfall
Troy, NY, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 11:15:05 EST
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Gypsum use in Extract Brewing
Hi All,
In HBD#1681, Dan Burke writes about gypsum use:
>I recently tried the "Toad Spit Stout" recipe from
>TNCJOHB, and I'm kinda curious if anyone else has
>had experience in using Gypsum as a water additive in
>extract brews.
>
>Reading the recipe, I got to the line that says:
>8 tsp gypsum, and I thought, cripes, that seems like a
>lot.
It *is* a lot. IMHO, this is just one of a number of examples of heinous
advice that appear in Papazian's books. According to the information I
have, 1 teaspoon of gypsum added to 5 gallons of water contributes ~60
ppm of calcium and ~140 ppm of sulfate. Multiply by 8, and it's a whopping
~480 ppm of calcium and ~1,120 ppm of sulfate that's being added. This is
clearly a radical water treatment, the fact that it is included in a recipe
without any prior knowledge of the water chemistry involved is what
qualifies this as particularly ugly advice.
>After tasting the gravity sample in about a week, he's
>right. It is bitter-harsh-chemical-tasting nasty!
Very, very sulfury, I would imagine.
>This isn't bitter like an ESB, it's bitter like battery
>acid! Hop rate was only about 15-18 HBU, not out of
>line for a dry stout IMHO.
I've never used HBUs, as I recall the conversion to IBUs is either 3.75 or
4 to 1, depending on what utilization number you use. So, I make 15-18 HBUs
as ~56-67 IBUs using the lower conversion factor of 3.75. (I think - I'm
working from memory here, if someone else knows better, please correct me).
That's a little on the high side, Guinness is hopped at 50 IBUs. Also, the
high sulfate content will put a long, dry finish on the beer and tend to
accentuate hop bitterness. So, I think the extreme bitterness you are
tasting is a result of slight overhopping in conjunction with very high
sulfate content.
All that said, I used to brew the Toad Spit Stout recipe frequently in
my extract brewing days. I think it's a decent extract/specialty grain recipe
for dry stout, if one omits the gypsum. Dan, you might want to try again.
Since you are starting with R.O. water, 1 teaspoon of gypsum would probably
be OK. Reduce your hop rate slightly, and steep (don't boil for 5 minutes -
another horrible piece of advice) the specialty grains, and you should get
good results.
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 17:40:20 +0700
From: c-amb@math.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Beer Engines
I wrote:
> <On the subject of Beer Engines, some people are confused about what
> <constitutes a Beer Engine. The pseudo beer engine in Zymurgy is
> <simply a sprinkler faucet. It is missing the pump necessary to be
> <a true Beer Engine. I am looking to buy or build the entire pump
> <& tap assembly.
Jim replied:
> Ive had beer off of Bob's pseudo beer engine and it was very good and
> very similar to real cask ales. The sparkler, in conjunction with
> extremely low CO2 levels is what makes a real ale. Some traditionalists
> would argue that gravity feed is the only true real ale, and in this
> case, the sparkler is non existent. The pump is a means to a end, not
> the required component of real ale.
Others, CAMRA included, might say that the contact with the air is another
essential component. When using a beer engine, as you know, air is allowed
to enter the cask and react to the beer. This does change the flavor profile.
In fact, in my understanding, a cask conditioned ale is only authentic (in
CAMRA's eyes) if dispensed with either a hand pump, gravity, or electric air
pump. No CO2 systems are allowed.
> Pumps are convienent, I love mine,
Where did you get it???
Bob (and if I could find a way to misspell his name I would) wrote:
> Well Mike your are right about people being "confused" about what a beer
> engine is. A true beer engine is indeed a hand pump, but its only function
> is to move the beer from the keg to the tap and on into the glass. It must
> do this with enough pressure to not only move the beer but with enough
> velocity to create or generate the head via the sparkler on the end of the
> faucet.
Basically true. However, I am looking into doing truly cask conditioned ales
in 1--2 gallon wooden casks. Due to insanity, I would like to allow the air
to difuse into the cask to keep it truly authentic. Moreover, some day I would
love to have this setup on a bar and keep the cask below in a cooled environment
thus neccesitating the pump. One can buy a Guiness tap which essentially does
what Bob's pseudo engine does but is prettier and more expensive (around $90);
however, for my "needs" a pump system is desired.
Many will argue that the air will only lead to deterioration of the beer.
This could easily become a religious war which we should avoid. Suffice it
to say that using air is the traditional method and I am looking to produce
ales in this method.
Also, If anyone knows where one could get pourous and non-pourous spiles and
the other various cask parts needed to cask condition I would be truly grateful
to hear from them.
Mark Alston
^^^^^
The Beer Nut, inc.
(c-amb@math.utah.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 13:20:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: Long Big-gravity Ale Ferment
We recently brewed a 5 gal, 92 OG Scotch Ale (it was an error), and pitched
with an enormous amount of Wyeast #1728 on the evening of 7 Mar. As of
today (17 Mar), fermentation is still going strong (quite strong). We
racked
ot Saturday, 11 Mar to clean up the fermenter.
We're getting about 4 BPM (bubbles per minute) with your standard
inverted-cup
airlock (not the dual-chamber style). This seems unusually active for a
10-day
ferment, and we're wondering if it's due to: a) the high OG, b) the nearly
1/2 L of
yeast solids we pitched with, or c) the #1728. We've never used this much
starter, have never brewed to this high an OG, but have used 1728 before--
have never had such an active ferment out at 10 days. Sound normal?
Kirk (Yakkin' it up again)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:59:29 -0800
From: bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros)
Subject: perceived bitterness
In HBD #1682 (March 17, 1995) Eric Schauber wrote:
>> Patrick E. Humphrey 708-937-3295" <HUMPHREY.PATRICK@igate.abbott.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> A taste of the primary at racking was rather bitter. Is this the style of
>> an American ale of this type? How long might it be before some of this
>> extra bitterness subsides? I like a hoppy brew but not extremely bitter.
>> Tony suggests that the bitterness might be due to the very late addition
>> of the Cascades.
>
>I, too, have only got a few batches under my belt, but I've noticed
>that the perceived bitterness before bottling is often quite a bit less
>than after the beer has been in the bottle even for a short time (1
>week). I'm not sure if this is an actual mellowing of the bittering
>compounds or simply some masking effect of refrigeration and
>carbonation.
>
I noticed the opposite of this the other day. I have a Maibock (all grain,
single decoction, recipe from Darryl Richman's book) in a corny keg
that has been lagering for about four weeks now. After about three
weeks, I bottled some in a litre plastic bottle and carbonated it with
a carbonator cap. (The keg has been sealed, so it was slightly
carbonated to begin with.)
The beer was quite good, clean, but more bitter than malty. That is,
it was a good beer but a lousy bock. Anyway, I sampled some more
out of the keg yesterday, and it had a different, much harsher
bitterness. This sample was colder and flatter than the first sample.
The beer had cleared a bit in the week between tastings.
Any comments on this? I hadn't noticed a change in bitterness like
this before. I'll try it again tonight; maybe the glass was dirty or
something like that. I used the new Wyeast pilsner yeast.
- Bryan
bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 95 16:48:32 EST
From: ITSI <73362.600@compuserve.com>
Subject: Water analysis
I've had a water analysis done on 2 samples of water. One sample was
from a counter-top filter and the other was store-bought distilled water.
The results came back but there was a slight problem in one of the
readings.
One of the measurements was "conductivity". The guy that did the analysis
said that the government requires that cities either test for "conductivity"
or "Total Dissolved Solids". I needs the reading in "Total Dissolved
Solids". He said there was a formula or a way to convert the conuctivity
reading to TDS but he didn't know what it was.
Anyway, can any of you rocket scientist or chemist help me out here?
If anyone's interested, here are the results:
Filtered Water Distilled
Calcium 124 0
Magnesium 20 0
Sodium 4 0.1
Sulfate 35.4 4.3
Carbonate 128 0
Chloride 10 2.5
Hardness 144 0
Conductivity 240um/hos 3um/hos
Total Dissolved Solids I DUNNO!!!! HELP!!!!!!
pH 7.6 7.0
Fluoride 1.01 .008
Alkalinity (total) 128 0
There it is.
BTW, I've noticed a few talked about paying bucks to get this done. If
you live in a city....IT'S FREE!!!! That's right, it is free everyday
of the week. Your actually paying for it in every months water bill and
and with your tax dollars. The water dept guy said they'll do it
if it's requested, but they don't advertise it.
I can just see now, city water depts across the nation on Monday morning:
long lines of homebrewers holding 2 plastic milk jugs full of water!
Jay Reeves
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 19:38:45 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Maillard/Gypsum/Glycogen
Allan Rubinoff <rubinoff@BBN.COM> asks in HBD #1680
> does anybody know *why* syrup degrades and DME doesn't?
I'm sure someone does but here's something that may apply.
(see p 464 of Vol 2 of Malting and Brewing Science).
The degradation is presumably due to Maillard reactions. These
start with an aldose (e.g. glucose) condensing with an amine to
form an aldosylamine. These in turn quickly undergo Amadori
rearrangement to ketosamines. Now here'e the key. The ketosamines
are "comparatively stable especially in the absence of water."
DME with low water content is therefore probably more stable
than syrup with a higher water content. Going further down
the path with ketosamines we wind up with furfurals which
are definietly perceived as "oxidized" or "stale".
DBURKE@smtpgate.tnrcc.texas.gov wondered (#1682) about 8 tsp
gypsum in Toad Spit Stout:
I had to go check the book because
I figured he must have misread it but no, 8 tsp is what it says.
Assuming 3 gram per tsp that's 24 grams in 19 litres or 1.26
grams/litre. The molecular weight of gypsum is 172 so that gives
7.34 millimoles/litre. The "molecular "weight of calcium is
40 for 40x7.34 = 293 milligrams/litre. The molecular weight of
sulphate is 96 for 96*7.34 = 704 mg/litre. The numbers for
Burton water are nominally 268 calcium and 638 sulphate so CP
is pretty close (assuming the 3 grams/tsp is right on my part).
Nevertheless, it sounds pretrty unappetizing!
" Patrick G. Babcock" <usfmchql@ibmmail.com> asks:
>What difference does it make whether they gobble
>their glycogens in a flask, or in your wort?
The current OPINION among the pros seems to be that the
yeast use their internal glycogen stores as a source of
ATP and carbon skeletons for sterol formation during the
cell buildup phase. Lots of glycogen thus means healthy cells.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 20:55:29 PST
From: hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: AFCHBC Results
Here are the competition results many of you have been eagerly
awaiting. Thanks for participating in a great competition!!
dion
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Annual America's Finest City
Homebrew Competition
March 11, 1995
Name Subcatagory Avg. Score Entries
1. Barley Wine:
1st Joel Rosen a 42 6
2nd Greg/Liz Lorton a 35.5
3rd Wayne Christy a 33.5
2. a-e Belgian/French
1st Chris Diencka c 32.5 15
2nd David Stahl c 28.5
3rd Frank Leers e 26.5
2. f Belg./French (Wit)
1st Douglas King f 42.5 4
2nd Eric Evonsion f 41.5
3rd Dave Levonian f 34.5
3. Belgian-Style Lambic
1st JD Eichman c 28 4
2nd Gerald Hofmaister c 27.5
3rd MB Raines &
Steve Casselman c 27
4. Brown Ale
1st Erol Kilki b 42 13
2nd Daniel Aviles a 36.5
3rd Steve Kittenhouse a 36
5. English-Style Pale Ale
1st Danny Griego b 43.5 19
2nd Bob Whritner a 42
3rd Lisa Gros b 41
6. American-Style Ale
1st MB Raines &
Steve Casselman a 38 23
2nd Dan Kern &
Joel Miller a 34.5
2nd Sean Silvera a 34.5
2nd Jerry Flores &
Craig Hill a 34.5
3rd Tod Fitzsimmons a 34
3rd Doug King a 34
7. English Bitter
1st Grant Cloverdale b 30.5 12
1st Eric Brown a 30.5
2nd Kurt Mengel b 30
3rd Amy Lachmanek ? 29
8. Scottish Ale
1st Ray Ballard c 36 8
2nd Danny Griego c 33.5
3rd MB Raines &
Steve Casselman b 32
9. Porter
1st Daniel Aviles a 44.5 14
2nd Fred Waltman &
Steve LaBrie a 39.5
3rd Steve Kittenhouse a 34
10. English & Scottish Strong Ale
1st Larry Drago b 41 7
2nd Joel Rosen a 39.5
3rd Robert Ethington b 38
11. Stout
1st Joel Rosen c 43 21
2nd Kurt Mengel a 37.5
3rd Ty Wilson a 37
3rd Erol Kilki c 37
12. Bock
1st Chris Diencka b 38.5 15
2nd James Mackey c 38
3rd Greg/Liz Lorton c 37.5
13. Bavarian Dark
1st Steve Dimmer b 40 6
2nd Glen Chandler a 34.5
2nd Bob Scogins a 34.5
3rd Robert Ethington b 34
14. German Light Lager
1st George Fix b 42 4
2nd Erich Lathers b 33
3rd Fred Waltman &
Steve LaBrie b 32
15. Classic Pilsner
1st Andy Gamelin a 41 6
2nd Chris Diencka b 37.5
3rd Russell Reece &
Nancy Paulikas b 34.5
16. American Lager
1st Bill Nordquist b 33.5 12
2nd Bill Nordquist a 31.5
3rd Eric Evonsion e 30
17. Vienna/Oktoberfest/Marzen
1st John Palmer a 37.5 13
2nd Phillip Duncan b 34.5
3rd Charles Foreman a 33.5
18. German-Style Ale
1st Jerry Flores &
Craig Hill b 40.5 7
2nd Michael Marsh a 35.5
3rd Pat Mcllhenney a 34.5
19. Fruit Beer
1st Mark Huettinger a 42.5 9
2nd Joseph Alfrey b 38.5
3rd JD Eichman a 36.5
20.Herb Beer
1st Charles West a 37 7
2nd Paul Eccles a 36.5
3rd Dave Stark a 34.5
21. Specialty Beer
1st Tony Tait a 38.5 18
2nd Sharon Dodge a 40.5
3rd Eric Hitzelberger a 36.5
2nd place has a higher score due to two teams of judges spliting 21. and then
working together to rank 1st three places.
22. Smoked Beer
1st Fred Waltman &
Steve LaBrie b 37.5 6
2nd David Stahl b 34.5
3rd Bob Whritner b 30.5
23. California Common Beer
1st Rod Streed a 31.5 6
2nd David Fowler a 30.5
3rd Steve Dimmer a 27.5
24. Wheat Beer (Ale)
1st Michael Marsh d 43.5 12
2nd Nick Franke a 39.5
3rd Grant Cloverdale d 38
25. Traditional Mead
1st Eric Evonsion a 40.5 13
2nd Russell Reece b 36
2nd Bob Scogins b 36
3rd Ed Iaciofano b 31.5
26. & 27. Melomel,Cyser, Pyment, Braggot & Metheglin,
Hippocras
1st Dennis Minikel 26b 41 15
2nd Dennis Minikel 26a 40.5
3rd Steve Dimmer 26a 39.5
28. Cider
1st Steve Dimmer b 39 3
2nd JD Eichman c 37.5
3rd JD Eichman c 31
29. Sake
1st Bob Scogins a 39 1
Best of Show: Douglas King of the Maltose Falcons for
Belgian Wit (White) Beer 2.f
QUAFF would like to congratulate the winners and thank all of you
who participated.
See you next year.
Cheers,
Skip Virgilio
Contest Organizer
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1683, 03/18/95
*************************************
-------
