Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2011
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/04/15 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #2011 Mon 15 April 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Products containing Malt Extract (BLynch6242)
Softeners/Charcoal Filters (A. J. deLange)
Partial Extract (Fred Waltman)
Uncl: Bottle Baking ("Calvin Perilloux")
Copper and RIMS (A. J. deLange)
Efficiency, Correcting for Losses (Kirk R Fleming)
RIMS: Incredible Find (I hope) (hollen)
U-tubes and auto-sparge (Rob Lauriston)
fermentation (Stetson)
Slow secondary (Mike Kidulich)
Open vs Closed primary (Craig Stewart)
Now two micros in Vegas (kcollins)
adjusting specific gravity ("Sharon A. Ritter")
micro-brew ("MK3052")
The Homebrew Digest (QABREW)
Brewclub (Central Mass.) update (Rich Lenihan)
The Buddy System... ("Pat Babcock")
prohibition (Robert Rogers)
******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.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@hpfcmgw.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@alpha.rollanet.org
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: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:08:50 -0400
From: BLynch6242@aol.com
Subject: Products containing Malt Extract
In HBD #2007, Kris Perez remarks on an old can of Blue Ribbon Extract with
the words "For the preparation of distinctive foods..." on it. Mention was
also made
of Malt-Extract pizza dough, Famous Amos cookies, Malted milkshakes and
Malted milkballs. I would just like to add that the primary ingredient of
Ovaltine
Chocolate Drink is Malt Extract. Last year, I made an extract/specialty grain
Porter using 1 cup of Ovaltine. It had a nice chocolatey flavor, although if
I made
it again, I would probably add another half-cup.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:26:51 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Softeners/Charcoal Filters
Duffy Toler asked about water softeners for brewing in #2010. He reported
36000 grains of hardness which is equivalent to 2100 mg/L so that must be
an error. He was told that the softener would leave 157 ppm sodium and
wants to know if that is too much. Yes, it is, for some styles but not for
others i.e. some ales have more than this. Geneally speaking, it is too
much. The effect it will give depends on whether it is paired with chloride
(better) or sulfate (both of which will sail through the softener). It is
now modish to think of sodium as poisonous and so the water treatment
companys are ready with exchangers which can be recharged with potassium
chloride (actually, most of them can be). Rather than 157 ppm sodium you
can have 266 ppm potassium. It's effect on the beer will be essentially the
same as that of sodium i.e. to make it salty or bitter (but remember this
is desireable in some ales.
The big problem with softeners is that they remove calcium. This is a
problem for all-grain brewers as they need calcium for proper mash
acidification but less of a problem for extract brewers. Note that
carbonate, the source of alkalinity, also goes through the softener so that
alkalinity is unaffected but calcium which combats its effects in the mash
is removed. Brewers using softeners often need to replace calcium and this
must be done by adding another anion, usually sulfate, which is probably
high if the water was that hard originally or chloride. The idea of using
calcium gluconate which was posted the other day is interesting if my
hypothesis that the yeast would metabolize the anion is correct.
The bottom line is that water softeners are pretty bad news for brewers.
Depending on the complete water analysis, it is probably better to bypass
the softener and decarbonate/soften the brewing water by boiling unless the
style being brewed is one which benefits from hard water. Iron can be
removed by aeration and filtering. Other approaches are small RO systems
(expensive) or small ion exchange systems (~$200) for the brewing water.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In the same number Jim Anderson asks about activated charcoal filters.
These will remove organics and chlorine (both free and bound) from water.
If the water does not contain objectionable levels of organic matter and if
it is low in chloramines (chlorine will react with organics in water to
form chloramines and some authorities now use chloramine as a disinfectant)
there is not much need for such a filter. Free chlorine will leave water if
the water is allowed to stand for a day or two. Activated charcoal filters
do not change the mineral content of the water. Get a water report from
your supplier before deciding whether to buy the filter. Note that if you
and your family the chlorine smell in municipal water offensive for
drinking, bathing etc. you can have a charcoal filter installed in your
plumbing system which will remove the chlorine from all the water supplied
to the house.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Waltman <waltman@netcom.com>
Subject: Partial Extract
Fred Hardy asks in #2010 about a kicker in an otherwise all grain batch:
I would call it an all grain batch. After all, an Abbey beer with a
couple of pounds of candi sugar would still be considered all grain, or a
British Ale with golden syrup. I don't like these distinctions -- if it
is a good beer, it is a good beer no matter how it was made.
Fred Waltman
Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co.
waltman@netcom.com
http://www.homebrew.inter.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:09:15 EDT
From: "Calvin Perilloux" <dehtpkn9@ibmmail.com>
Subject: Uncl: Bottle Baking
In HBD #2009 Mike Spinelli describes baking bottles to sanitize.
Yep, it works great, more or less. However, my experience with it
was not perfect. My father follows that method, and when I was
helping him bottle about a year ago, we lost around 10% or more
of our bottles! He said that's just the way it goes for him with
those light non-returnables, but at least he's never had a bottle
filled with homebrew crack yet.
My suggestions to those of you wanting to use this method:
1) Stand the bottles up in the oven, perhaps not even touching
each other. We had them stacked like a cord of firewood
once for a big batch that was too many to do vertically.
Bad news, when the heat expansion started pushing and
grinding them together!
2) Don't crank the heat up real hot and real fast. Dad says
he loses fewer bottles when he is patient and gives it low
heat for an hour and then turns it up to sterilizing temp.
3) After the bottles are cool, give each one a couple of thumps
on the counter as you get ready to use it. On rare occasions,
the thing just cracks apart from fatigue or stress fractures.
Better to have that at bottling time than in your closet later
with carbonated beer inside.
4) Stick with the heavier, returnable bottles, which seemed to
break less frequently.
As for me, until they start making bottles out of Pyrex, I plan to
continue avoiding the cracked bottle problem and stick with my
mild bleach or iodophor solution, which has given me good results
despite rinsing with un-sterilized tap water.
Calvin Perilloux "Bayerisches Bier,
dehtpkn9@ibmmail.com Staerker als Heimweh"
Erding, Germany
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:24:08 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Copper and RIMS
About a month ago there was speculation about whether passage through a
RIMS system with copper components would cause the wort to pick up a lot of
copper. At that time I said I would analyze a wort sample if any RIMSer
wanted to send me one and C.D. Pritchard responded. After some
correspondence we decided that the copper in the malt would interfere i.e.
that we would not be able to tell whether increased copper in the finished
wort was that released from the malt or from the plumbing and so the test
was run with tap water. Here are the particulars of what he did:
>I finally ran a water sample through the RIMS. About 5 gallons of
>water was obtained directly from my hot water tap and was not treated. The
>pH at 70degF was between 4.6 and 4.9 as near as I can tell from the pH
>papers. It was boosted to 158degF and held via recirculation and heat for
>90 minutes. The temp was then boosted to 170 and left for 60 minutes. A
>sample was taken after recirculating the water for a couple of minutes (the
>temp. had dropped to 166 degF).
>
This sample measured 0.12 mg/L copper content. The pH was 7.56
The control (no RIMS) sample measured 0.01 mg/L copper and had a pH of
7.45. Thus some copper was picked up in going through the RIMS but not a
startling amount. In interpreting these results remember that the
agressivity of water towards copper depends not only on the pH but also on
the alkalinity and calcium hardness. The control sample akalinity was 51
ppm as CaCO3 and calcium hardness 39 ppm as CaCO3 (magnesium was 20 ppm so
total hardness is 59 which is pretty soft). These give a saturation pH of
pHs = 8.4. Lageliers index is SI = pH - pHs = -.93 which indicates
corrosion and Ryznars index: RI = 2pHs - pH = 9.32 which is in the
"corrosion intolerable to metal surfaces" range. Both these values are at
25C. At 70C (where most of the circulation was done) the Ryznar index is
8.24 which is in the "heavy corrosion" range. Based on the 25C value I
would have expected to see more copper in the non RIMS water. That sample
must have been taken after the system was flushed.
This experiment doesn't tell the whole story since a wort with pH in the
starch conversion range is going to be at lower pH but, on the other hand,
it also contains the buffers from the malt. The only way to tell how much
the RIMS system really contributes is to brew 2 batches with the same malt
and water using RIMS in one case and no copper in the other. Nonetheless,
the experiment does indicate what our intuition told us: that a couple of
hours of exposure of aggressive water to copper isn't long enough for it to
pick up very much of the ion.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:50:35 +0100
From: Kirk R Fleming <flemingk@usa.net>
Subject: Efficiency, Correcting for Losses
In #2010 Ken made some good points about how to compensate for system
losses to ensure you get your targer fermenter volume and gravity. In
reference to .4 gal unrecoverable kettle loss:
> Note that 5.4 versus 5 gallons is nearly 10% more, so this can have a
> pretty significant impact on your grain bill (you'll need 1/2 to 1
> pound more grain for a typical 5-gal batch). Neglecting this in your
> formulation can lead to lower-than-expected OG's (and therefore
> incorrect efficiency figures).
I agree with the lower-than-expected OG's. You've computed for a 5 gal
batch then added .4 gal of kettle volume to compensate for unrecoverable
loss in the pan, but...
Your efficiency figures should not be affected at all, since they're
based on volume, gravity, and grain bill. IOW, the number of point-gals
you produce with a given grain bill is what determines your efficiency,
and is independent of the volume you produce, given you're talking
*extraction* efficiency.
I think it's important, when comparing "efficiency", to specify
extraction efficiency or system efficiency. Note that Ken has
to use extra grain to produce the extra .4 gal of wort that can't be
recovered due to the system itself. If he were to cite efficiency
numbers based on point-gallons IN THE FERMENTER per pound of grain, he'd
show a lower efficiency than an identical brewer who *can* recover the
.4 gal, and that's a system issue, not an extraction issue.
Some readers are asking, "Who gives a flip"? Efficiency numbers are
useful as a metric for brewing control and consistency. Forget about the
values of the numbers themselves for a minute. I want to know if there
is at least a *correlation* between my process and the product. If you
keep extraction rate separated from as much system-specific stuff as you
can (such as hose, pump and pan losses), then changes in the system
will have minimum effect on your extraction numbers. Changes you make to
your sparge/lauter techniques, for example, will reveal themselves even
if you also change kettle shape or plumbing, etc.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 13:24:40 PDT
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: RIMS: Incredible Find (I hope)
One of the most challenging pieces of equipment on a RIMS system is
the input line to the pump. It must take high heat, be food grade,
and not collapse under vacuum. One outstanding alternative, SS
overbraided teflon is $8 per foot, but this rather pricey for most
people and also it is not readily available. I just discovered what
appears to be a good alternative, and that is Nalgene Brand PVC vacuum
hose. It is autoclavable, food grade, and the 1/2" stuff is 1.25 OD
so that it will not collapse under vacuum.
I am hoping that someone who currently does not have a good input
hose, or who has a poor one which should be replaced, could try this
out and let me know how it works. I already have the SS/teflon hose,
so I can't get any better input hose.
thanks,
dion
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 15:56 PDT
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: U-tubes and auto-sparge
Harlan <blacksab@siu.edu> mentioned U-tubes a few issues ago.
I build my lautering run-off lines to imitate the modified U-tube used at
Upper Canada Brewing in Toronto. There, the wort from under the lauter
screen travels from the outlet at the bottom of the vessel up to about a
foot above the level of the screen. It then has a short horizontal run
where there is a six foot vertical tube (small diameter) open to the air.
This acts as a siphon breaker. The run-off then goes down to the kettle.
This arrangement reduces the sucking pressure on the bed because the wort is
effectively being drawn from the top of the inverted 'U' where the siphon
breaker is.
*** The problem I had in scaling down this arrangement came from using 1/2"
ID pipe and tubing. Say the wort was running at a rate that would make the
tube half full. What happens is that the capilliary action (?) of the
liquid does not allow it to remain only half full. Instead, the wort
gathers together to fill the tubing for a certain length, then there's a big
bubble and no wort for the next bit, and then another section of tube
completely filled with wort. The sections that are completely full push the
bubbles ahead of them, meaning that I got a lot of bubbling in my collection
pot. If the outlet from the tube wasn't in the wort, then I'd get
splashing. I'm trying to avoid HSA as is the fashion <g>, so I don't like
this bubbling.
This arrangement _does_ reduce the sucking on the bed. (Hey, I'm talking
lauter tun here!). The only problem is what to do with the wort after the
siphon-breaker. Is there a way to break the siphon without having the line
open to the air? For now, I've plugged the opening to my siphon-breaker and
regulate the flow with ball-valves.
In short, I found that a valve is an easier way to control run-off.
Okanagan Spring brewery here in Vernon used to have a U-tube. There was a
sight glass and siphon breaker in a 4" ID tube at the top of the inverted
'U', and the whole think was moved up and down with hydraulics like a big
trombone. When the hydraulics became unreliable, we started regulating the
flow with a butterfly valve on the line, and it worked just fine.
>QUESTION #1: Is this what I am seeing (or something like it) in the picture
on p.67 of Eric Warner's GERMAN WHEAT BEER?
This looks like a close-up of the same sort of thing that's on p.91 of
Richman's Bock. Since the tube in the picture(s) goes up and down the same
distance and is completely filled with liquid, it would have no effect on
the hydrostatic head. Perhaps it is intended to reduce splashing?
I looked at the picture in J.S. Hough's THE BIOTECHNOLOGY OF MALTING AND
BREWING p.58 too. Harlan wrote:
>... what seems to be happening is this tube takes
the liquid from the bottom of the mash-tun (the highest gravity), but not
until the head has exceeded the top of the grain-bed. As such, the flow of
sparge water dictates the outflow of wort from the mash tun since there is
no longer any siphon.
I have never done a mash where the results matched the description of the
classical British 'floating' mash, so I'm guessing here. I think that the
top of the U-tube would be at a point where you have some runoff before you
have any sparge added. Hough does write on p. 61 that "... the rate of
sparging more or less compensates for the rate of wort run-off from the
tun." The 'U'-tube is described as a "device for _adjusting_ hydrostatic
head..." so I take it that the U-tube is adjustable. (Okanagan Springs was,
Upper Canada wasn't). I'm guessing that even a floating mash does contract,
and so the top of the mash becomes lower and the U-tube is adjusted to match
this.
I don't know if a U-tube can help automate your sparging. If there was only
water and no grain, for every drop of sparge in, you'd get a drop out. But
with the grain, you _can_ add lots of sparge without getting _anything_ out.
You're relying on the bed remaining very fluffy and permeable.
It's a great idea, though, and I hope it works for you. Please keep up posted.
- -- Rob Lauriston.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:24:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stetson <stetson@globalone.net>
Subject: fermentation
Hello, I saw a possible answer to my question, but I couldn't find itin
the past issues.
My question is about fermentation. I just check all 3 of my batches
tonight, and they have been sitting for 8 days, and the hydrometer is
reading fairly high from the starting gravity. I think the fermentation
stopped so I opened up the buckets, and stirred it up some to ajitate the
wort, hoping to start the fermentation up again. Well, I guess my
question is was this the correct thing to do?
Should I try adding more yeast if the fermentation doesn't start up again?
Thanks!
Eric
stetson@global1.net
Happy Brewing!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:25:57 -0400
From: Mike Kidulich <mjkid@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Slow secondary
To the collective,
I have a stout which has been in the secondary for 12 days, following a
one week primary. Temp is a steady 62F. It shows a persistent, very thin
collar of tan foam where the liquid meets the glass. If I shine a
flashlight into the carboy, I can see a steady stream of tiny bubbles.
The OG was 1.070, and the SG today was 1.024. The yeast is Wyeast
Scottish, pitched from a starter. The airlock shows barely any activity.
I haven't seen activity like this in a secondary before. When will it be
safe to bottle? SG is pretty close to predicted.
TIA
- --
Mike Kidulich
mjkid@ix.netcom.com mjk@rfc.comm.harris.com
DNRC Minister of Home Brewing, Relaxation, and Really Cool Toys
Holder of Previous Knowledge O-
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:15:33 -0300 (ADT)
From: Craig Stewart <foghorn1@quartz.nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: Open vs Closed primary
Ladies and Gentlebrewers,
A while back, I started using a 'closed' primary fermentation system with
a blow off tube, in hopes of 'improving' my beer. I have been getting
very low % alc, and a very sweet final product. This last batch, I
followed my proceedure for a pale ale, but I went back to the 'ole
plastic bucket open primary. I just racked into my glass secondary today,
and the SG has gone lower than it has in a long time. Would the fact
that the krausen and the very active yeast it contains fell back into the
fermenting ale contribute to this? I'm going to wait and see if it will
work to compleation in the secondary. That was another thing, when I
ferment in glass, after going into the secondary, it works for a day or
so, and stops with a high SG. I've tried rousing the settled yeast, but
that doesn't do much either. I'm about to go back to the 'primitive'
system of open fermentation. If the "Big Boys" can do it without a
problem, so can I.
BTW, and FWIW, I don't wear plaid unless I'm doing a Scotish Ale, and so
honour my ancestors! The secret to this though is to either find a
strain or condition a strain of yeast to react well to bag pipe music!
<grin> Happy Brewday!
- --
**************************************************************************
Non-Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my
employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental.
Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence
of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A
discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope
of this article.)
**************************************************************************
flames to /dev/null
Craig Stewart
foghorn1@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 07:10:16 -0500 (EST)
From: kcollins@seidata.com
Subject: Now two micros in Vegas
Greetings everyone. Just for everyones information, I recently read in THE NEW
BREWER of a new "microbrewery/casino" that opened 01/18/96. It is located in
the community of Green Valley, just 8 miles from the Las Vegas strip. It is
called Barley's Casino and Brewing Co., and without paraphrasing the whole
article, it appears there intention was german authenticity. I would also like
to thank everyone for the responses on my original query for microbreweries in
the Las Vegas area... The Holy Cow casino/brewery.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Apr 96 11:34:01 EDT
From: "Sharon A. Ritter" <102446.3717@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: adjusting specific gravity
>Would someone out there please help? I would like to<
>reduce the O.G. from .60 to about .45. I would like to do this<
>at priming time....Can someone send more accurate calculations?<
Check out pgs. 380-381 in Papazian's The New Complete Joy of Homebrewing
book. He includes a table with rates of dilution to hit target specfic
gravity reductions. I have used these figures many times with success
(I make any needed wort dilutions before pitching). Charlie notes that
the rate of dilution and the change in specific gravity are not the same
at different wort densities. The table reflects these differences.
By applying the data in the table to the above example, one would add
approximately .8 gallons water, or 30% of 2.75 gallons, to reduce SG by
.014.
Dan Ritter in Grangeville, Idaho
102446.3717@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 12:08:49 EST
From: "MK3052" <MK3052AC@stem.indstate.edu>
Subject: micro-brew
Just wondering if anyone can let me know of any micro-brew's in
southern Indiana?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:11:16 -0400
From: QABREW@aol.com
Subject: The Homebrew Digest
Please put my name on the list to receive the Digest.
Thanks,
QABREW
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:22:39 -0500
From: Rich Lenihan <richl@zipnet.net>
Subject: Brewclub (Central Mass.) update
- -- [ From: Rich Lenihan * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
Just a brief note to inform you that the the Worry Worts homebrew
club has found a new home (both real and virtual). We will be be
meeting at 7:30 pm on the 3rd Wednesday of every month at Memorial
Hall, Milford MA. Also, our new web site can be found at:
http://www.zipnet.net/users/richl/worry-worts.html
Carry on...
-Rich
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:46:44 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: The Buddy System...
Greetings, Beerlings! Mail me your lager...
The deed is done. If you'll point your browser in the general
direction of http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brewbuds.html to see the
new Brew Buddies page. The web-impaired can send an e-mail note with
the words "send buddies" on the subject line to receive a paltry
text version of it.
Though I kept the individual graphics on the small size, there's a
few o' them on the page folks...
- ------------
In other news, there's a very good reason why the HomeBrew
University - Motor City Campus Bulletin Board System doesn't pick up
if you just happen to dial it up: Immediately after sending this
message, I intend to euthanize it...
- -----------
And how was YOUR weekend?!?
See ya!
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock@oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the
end of your day as every sentence requires proper
punctuation.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:37:58 -0400
From: bob@carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: prohibition
[snip]
Well, I am not sure about beer, it was probably illegal to make at home
during prohibition, but wine was quite legal to make for family use in
many states. As mentioned in a post if the April 12 HBD, most of
[end snip]
correct me if i'm wrong, but the following seems very clear, and i don't see
any exceptions:
[quote]
Amendment XVIII
(1919)
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the
importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United
States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage
purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power
to enforce this article byappropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the
several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the
date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
[end quote]
i have used some of those old blue ribbon malt extract cans to brew with.
they work.
bob
bob rogers, bob@carol.net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2011, 04/15/96
*************************************
-------
