Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3145
HOMEBREW Digest #3145 Fri 15 October 1999
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
cranberries (R.L.)" <rbyrnes2@ford.com>
RE:Cranberries ("Kelly")
Starter stepup / SG to Plato (Demonick)
convert sankey to corny? (Ian Smith)
Champagne alcohol (Dave Burley)
Re: stepping-up starters (Bob.Sutton)
Czech malt (John Wilkinson)
mass conservation ("Bayer, Mark A")
Plato Conversions/Alcohol Limits (AJ)
Primarily a Prime Priming Question (Kevin or Darla Elsken)
Re: stepping-up starters ("Sean Richens")
yeast, cranberries (Jim Liddil)
clearfine ("jim williams")
Beer in Denver (Jeff Renner)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* Send an email note to majordomo@hbd.org with the word "lists" on one
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:07:20 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
The Jethro Gump Report
Martha Stewart...
Allegedly, Martha Stewart is doing a show from the Puterbaugh Hop Farms,
on Monday the 18th of October...
Set your VCR's accordingly.......
Jethro Gump
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:27:39 -0400
From: "Byrnes Jr, Richard (R.L.)" <rbyrnes2@ford.com>
Subject: cranberries
Just to throw my $.02 in, Hoptech (www.hoptech.com ) now carries Cranberry
flavoring, $5.95 for 2oz, presumably enough for a 5 gal batch. I've used
Hoptech's fruit flavorings before and find them to be of excellent quality.
I know the "purists" would never stoop to using fake flavorings over real
fruit, but with the concerns of tannins this might be a good and safe
alternative.
Cheers!
Rich Byrnes
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:07:10 -0500
From: "Kelly" <kgrigg@diamonddata.com>
Subject: RE:Cranberries
One of my first beers was a 'Cran-Beer' that I kind of made up. I crushed
berries and put them in my primary, but, only after the heat had died down
quite a bit. I had no problems with pectins nor infections. And to this
day, my friends still rave that this was one of my best beers....!!
My $0.02,
Kelly
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention,
With the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:37:55 -0700
From: Demonick <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Starter stepup / SG to Plato
The conversion formula for SG to Plato, from, Manning, M.P.,
Understanding Specific Gravity and Extract, Brewing Techniques,
1,3:30-35 (1993) is:
P = -676.67 + 1286.4SG - 800.47SG**2 + 190.74SG**3
I'm with Alan Meeker who said, "I don't see any reason for there to
be a limit on the dilution of yeast cells you can perform in stepping
up the yeast."
Also, thank you, Alan, for noting that you refrigerate your starters.
I do it too, and other brewers are often aghast at the practice. It
sure drops the yeast and makes a nice cake!
My guess is that this starter step practice developed to limit
contamination before sanitation practices were as good as they are
today. A large starter will tend to out-compete any wild nasties in
the brew.
In all honesty, I must say that my microbiologist friends say that in
fact, yeasties prefer a certain density of chums. To date they
haven't really been able to say why, and the yeasties certainly seem
to do fine, but I'll ask again. Every field of human endeavor has its
owm Momilies, perhaps this is one of microbiology's.
Any effect that may come from "lonely yeast" is well down the list of
other factors that have a much larger effect on my brew. Perhaps once
I have gotten everything else perfect, crush and ingredients, water
treatment, mash and sparge technique, conquer HSA, sanitation,
fermentation temperature, proper and perfect aeration, etc. When I
can get everything right, every time, for every different recipe,
then, perhaps, I'll worry that my yeasties are stressed by initially
not having enough chums about when they hit my 2L starter from a
measly plate scraping. Or maybe I'll just use the time saved to
pursue other interests.
By the way, a 1 quart starter into a 5 gallon batch is a 20x jump.
Why should the jump to the fermenter be any different than the starter
steps?
Cheers!
Domenick Venezia
Venezia & Company, LLC
Maker of PrimeTab
(206) 782-1152 phone
(206) 782-6766 fax orders
demonick at zgi dot com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:32:23 -0600
From: Ian Smith <isrs@cmed.com>
Subject: convert sankey to corny?
There is a way of making the oval corny opening in a sankey keg. I'm not
sure where I saw it but all you have to do is purchase an extra corny lid
and o-ring and voila! You have the traditional corny opening and an easier
way of cleaning out the keg (by getting your whole arm down in there!). Has
anyone out there seen this type of setup? How difficult is it to cut the
necessary hole? Does it work?
Cheers!
Ian Smith
isrs@cmed.com <mailto:isrs@cmed.com>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:09:50 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Champagne alcohol
Brewsters:
Larry Land asks why Champagne has a limit of about 12%
alcohol and wants to go to 15%.
Champagne by the classical methode Champenoise
is limited to some extent by the fact that it must referment
in the bottle. Typically, the alcohol content is 10% or
lower after the first fermentation. Sugar in the form of
sweet juice or sometimes sugar is added to produce
5-6 atm of CO2 after a second fermentation in the bottle
with S. Bayanus. I haven't calculated it, but suspect this
would bring the champagne up a point or two. After
degorgement ( yeast removal) a dosage of sweetened
"brandy" ( use vodka) is sometimes added, depending
on the producer and the style of the champagne.
This is to stabilize the champagne in the bottle by
kicking the alcohol a little higher to keep the added
sugar from refermenting. And it also has other effects.
It isn't just the bubbles.
You can add as much alcohol at the end as you
wish and take it to 15% if the delicacy of the champagne
will not be overpowered.
- --------------------------------------
Rob wants to make a Stella Artois. I was never
very impressed with this beer, and don't think it
has anything special done to it. Just try a pale
malt recipe low hopped with Saaz, mash at 158F
and your beer will become his favorite. I would
use a Copenhagen Lager yeast.
- --------------------------------------
Paul Niebengall's philosophy that the sugar
doesn't go away upon boiling is correct.
His explanation is perhaps a little clouded
by skipping to the ratio of volumes before
and after the boil. It is perhaps simpler to say
that the gravity ( the digits after the decimal
point in an SG measurement X 1000) times
the volume is constant during the boil.
Gi X Vi = Gf X Vf
Such that for an SG of 1.040 ( gravity of 40)
and a volume of 1 gallon would give a gravity
of 40 x 1 = Z X 0.75 or a gravity of Z = 53 if
25% of the gallon is boiled away. The final
SG would be 1.053
- -------------------------------------
Sean asks about including cranberries in his beer,
when and how. If you want to cook these, do that,
cool and then add pectic enzyme. Allow it to sit
around for a few hours and then add to your primary,
which you have done in the "open" style in a plastic
container, covered with a plastic sheet or lid. After
the new fermentation has subsided and the color
extracted is OK, scoop off the majority of the
berries which are floating and rack to the secondary
to finish. This should take care of the haze and the
problem of gushing carboys and all that cleanup.
Remember the beer will foam up when you add the
berries, so add them slowly.
- ---------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:24:53 -0400
From: Bob.Sutton@fluor.com
Subject: Re: stepping-up starters
Kyle asks about stepping up yeast and Alan's comments are spot on...
>I don't see any reason for there to be a limit on the dilution of yeast
>cells you can perform in stepping up the yeast.
>My advice to you is to decrease the number of steps to a bare
>minimum. Ideally, this would mean going right from your 50 ml
>smack pack to whatever starter volume you are shooting for.
Commercially you'll see 1-3% inoculum levels for the growth phase -
however, oxygen availability is critical as Alan acknowledges...
>...but the geometry would limit proper aeration.
[snip]
>you can get around this problem by using some sort of
>aeration system or a magnetic stirrer)....
I scale-up from the 50 ml smacker into a 3-liter soft drink bottle in
successive steps (aerating w/O2 at each interval). On brew day, I decant
the 3 liters, and add fresh media either from DME, or wort I've set aside
from a previous batch. Eight hours later when the new wort is in the
fermentor, the three liter starter is at high krausen and ready for
brewing.
Bob Sutton
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Yesterdays' Technology Today
--------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any
use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the
company.
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:26:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Wilkinson <John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com>
Subject: Czech malt
Someone asked about the modification level of Czech malt.
St. Pat's page gives the Kolbach index of the Moravian malt they sell as 44.6.
They have the complete analysis there. Their ID is
http://www.stpats.com/bindex.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:29:10 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: mass conservation
collective homebrew conscience_
paul n wrote:
>Anyway, enough of the science. The easiest way that I have found to think
>about SG when brewing beer is to use what I call "beer mass units" (BMU).
>This is not a real technical term, but here is how it works. If you
>measure the SG of your pre-boiled wort and it is 1.052, subtract 1, and
>think of that as .052 "BMUs" . As long as you dont add additional sugar
>or extract to your wort, the amount of BMUs remains constant and will not
>change no matter how much you boil off from your kettle or top off in your
>fermentor. You will always have .052 BMU's (I call this the "First Law of
>Conservation of BMUs"). To get the SG of the final wort, all you have to
>do is divide the original wort volume (the that you measured the SG in the
>first place) by the final volume of wort, multiply this ratio by your
>BMUs, and add 1. Example:<snip>
preboiled wort contains material in solution that is broken out during the
boil, into hot break. also, cold break will come out of solution as the
wort is cooled.
is this error usually "in the noise" so that:
preboil [gravity points*vol] = postboil, chilled[gravity points*vol]
remains approximately true?
just curious.
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:32:23 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Plato Conversions/Alcohol Limits
For those who wish "official" SG/Plato interconversions I have done
polynomial fits to the ASBC tables. The results are given below. Each
conversion is in the form exemplified by the first set of data which
converts degrees Plato (symbolized by 'P') to specific gravity ('SG'):
SG = C0 + C1*P + C2*P*P + C3*P*P*P. Second order fits have 3
coefficients and third order fits 4. The use of the third order fits is
rarely justified.
Specific gravity here means the ratio of the weight of a fixed volue of
the fluid (beer or wort) being tested at 20C to the weight of an equal
volume of pure (degassed, deionized) water at 20C (and 1 atmosphere
pressure). Conversions are given for true specific gravity which is a
number near 1 such as, for example, 1.0471 and where specific gravity is
expressed as "points" obtained by subtracting 1 from the specific
gravity and multiplying by 1000 (e.g. for SG = 1.0471 the "points" are
47.1).
"Degrees Plato" means the grams of extract in 100 grams of beer or wort
i.e. the percentage by weight of extract in the beer or wort.
"Res" means "residual" and measures the imperfection of the polynomial
fit. RMS (root mean square) residual is a sort of average error. "Pk
Res" means the largest error over the range of the fit (0 - 20 P; 1.000
- 1.083 SG). Thus the first fit given below ( 3 coefficient Plato to
specific gravity) is in error by at most 0.00004 SG units with the
errors most likely to be encountered being more like 0.00001 SG units.
Using 4 coefficients reduces both the peak and rms residuals somewhat;
usually not enough to make the trouble of having to compute the fourth
term worth while.
Examination of the residuals reveals 3 things of interest:
1. The polynomials which model the data very well above 1 P do so a
little less well below 1P. The peak residual is found between 0P and 1P
in all cases.
2. Outside this range the residuals are clearly due to roundoff error in
the ASBC tabulations
3. There is an exception to Observation 2 near 2.05P where a small
peaking in the residuals occurs. The nature of this peak is distinctly
unlike roundoff noise and amounts to perhaps half the peak residual
value.
These coefficients can be conveniently inserted into spreadsheets,
computer programs, programmable calculators etc.
Degrees Plato to Specific Gravity (SG = C0 + C1*P + C2*P*P + C3*P*P*P):
C0 C1
C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk
Res
1.00003918997 0.003852303054
0.00001466135913 1e-5 4E-5
1.0000130841 0.0038677699 0.000012744687403 6.34964E-8
2.3E-6 1.5E-5
Degrees Plato to Specific Gravity "points":
C0 C1
C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk
Res
0.03918997 3.8523030547
0.0146613591 0.01 0.04
0.01308411 3.8677699173 0.0127446874
6.349639E-5 0.002 0.014
Specific gravity to degrees Plato (P = C0 + C1*SG + C2*SG*SG +
C3*SG*SG*SG)
C0 C1
C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk
Res
-463.37389 668.72340
-205.34914 0.0016
0.002
-616.98918 1111.48785 -630.60624
136.10405 0.0006 0.003
Specific gravity "points" to degrees Plato
C0 C1
C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk
Res
0.00035982658 0.258025110875
-0.0002053491 0.0016 0.002
-0.0035242703 0.258587513965 -0.0002222941 1.3610405E-7
0.0006 0.003
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
Larry Land asked about pH testing and alcohol tolerance in mead making.
pH testing has been extensively discussed here and in the brewing
magazines. In a nutshell, test strips and electronic meters are the main
options. The test strips are inaccurate and the meters expensive and a
bit tricky to use though they keep becoming less (expensive and finicky
both) as the technology advances.
As for alcohol tolerance, there are two parts to the story. One is the
fundamental tolerance capabilities of the yeast strain used and the
other is the ability of the particular strain selected to work up to its
inherent ability. Selection of a yeast strain which can go the required
distance is thus one part of the brewer's task and the other is to make
sure that the culture he pitches is strong and that the must is
suitable. A strong culture is obtained by feeding up the starter with
sugar and nitrogen and supplying oxygen frequently. This results in a
large number of cells with strong cell membranes and this is what is
required to tolerate high alcohol. The must itself must provide enough
nitrogen (honey doesn't contain very much so yeast nutrient must be
added) and it is also important that it be oxygenated at pitching.
I've really only worked with the Wyeast Pasteur Champagne and found that
it will typically go to 13.5% ABV but on one occasion it went to 17.4%
for me.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:49:44 -0400
From: Kevin or Darla Elsken <kelsken@adelphia.net>
Subject: Primarily a Prime Priming Question
In HBD# 3143, Bill Steadman writes about his under carbonated bitter:
>I bottled 8.25 gallons of an Ordinary English Bitter with 5 oz of corn sugar
>desiring 2.0 CO2 VOL...I have read in past posts that temperature definitely
>plays a role in carbonation levels. The dorm refrigerator was pretty cold
>maybe 40 degrees or so.
This works out to 0.5/8.25 or about 0.6 oz/gallon of dextrose.
In Noonan's "New Brewing Lager Beer" Table 23 on page 246 lists
recommended priming levels for various volumes CO2. He recommends 1.2
oz/gal for 2 volumes CO2 at 50 deg or 1.5 volumes at 40 deg. It appears
that approximately every 0.3 oz/gal increase in dextrose adds about 0.5
volume CO2.
Now extrapolating backwards (always dangerous), this would suggest that
Bill's Bitter had only 0.5 to 1.0 volumes CO2, depending on temperature.
Now, I have a question.
I recently brewed a 5.5 gallon batch of Porter. Terry Foster, in his
book on Porter ("Classic Beer Style Series"), recommends about 1.9 to
2.0 volumes CO2 in a bottled porter at 50 deg F. He claims 4.25 oz
dextrose will increase the CO2 volumes by about 1.4 in 5 gallons of
beer. He states that fermented beer at room temperature holds about 0.5
volumes. So by his recommendation, I would need about 4.25 x (5.5/5.0)
or 4.7 oz dextrose.
Now Noonan says nothing about CO2 in fermented beer. By his
calculations I would need 1.2 x 5.5 or 6.6 oz dextrose!
Now to further confuse matters, I weighed out 6.2 oz dextrose and I had
well over a cup of dextrose. Until I recently purchased a scale, I
always used the 0.75 cup dextrose per 5 gallon rule of thumb that seems
to be the norm. My beers always have had decent carbonation (but
whether they held a head is another story!). I weighed out 4.7 oz
dextrose and had about 7/8 of a cup. That is what I used. I have not
tasted this batch yet, so I cannot comment on its carbonation level.
So who is right? It seems that Foster is closer to what is normally
recommended. Comments?
So back to Bill's dilemma. You might have up to 1.5 volumes of CO2 at
50 deg F, if Foster is to be believed. Bitters are not supposed to be
heavily carbonated anyway. Warm that stuff up. Drink it as it is meant
to be drunk!
Regards,
Kevin Elsken
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:41:17 -0500
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens@sprint.ca>
Subject: Re: stepping-up starters
Alan writes:
=================================================
I don't see any reason for there to be a limit on the dilution of yeast
cells you
can perform in stepping up the yeast. Whether you do a 4X, 8X, 10X, or even
a 100X step up it will not affect the growth rate of the individual yeast
cells thus
the population as a whole will increase at the same rate in any of these
cases
(it will take you the same amount of time to get your desired yeast numbers
regardless of the dilutions or number of steps involved). What is their
rationalle
for limiting the dilutions in your steps?
====================================================
Well, that's what the math I learned in Engineering school says. But I
also learned that math has its limits. I work in the antibiotic business
and even with 100% guaranteed sterile closed systems we stick to 10X steps
(50X at absolute maximum).
I'm not a microbiologist or biochemist, so I look at it this way: the bugs
get lonely if you dilute them too much. Also, the faster the fermentation
starts (dropping the pH, nutrient levels, etc.) the sooner the wort becomes
unfriendly for bacteria. Some yeasts (the Lalvin Champagne yeast EC1118,
for example) actually make antibiotics against wild yeasts.
Now, I pitch 50 mL smack packs into 1 L , take a sniff, then pitch into 23
L. It works, and I repitch 2 more times. You'll find a whole range of
practices among your fellow brewers, but they all work more or less at
those limits.
Hope you don't get flamed too badly.
Sean
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:59:39 -0400
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@vms.arizona.edu>
Subject: yeast, cranberries
Bill wrote:
> I asked Wyeast if they could provide this yeast. They can but initial
> costs would be around $200. As I understand it they would maintain the
> yeast and you could place an order for it through your homebrew shop as
> usual. I'm interested in trying this out but the initial cost is pretty
> steep. If one or more homebrewers would like to try it perhaps a
> Ludwig's yeast consortium could be formed. If anyone is interested let
> me know.
And what kind of guarantee si Logsdon going to provide that the yeast is
what he says it is? will he provide the information as to where the yeast
came from? will he provide carbon and nitrogen assimilation data,
sporulation etc? Will he guarantee it to be free of bacteria (not the less
than 1 cfu/liter or whatever it says on their web site). I've already had
a conversation with Bill and am working on getting this strain directly
from a yeast repository. I will say nothing more until I actually have the
yeast and have propagated it.
Sean asks:
> The worst I get with adding cranberries (loads and loads of them) at the
> have an alternative at the liquor store tend not to complain. I can't
> decide if the haze nicely brings out the red colour or detracts from the
> beer.
I must confess that my wording was a bit strong and incorrect. But I have
found getting rid of the pectin haze from cranberries to be problematic.
but again does it really matter?
>
> I add them at this stage because I want the carbonic maceration effect.
Now that's a new term. :-) As Dan and Ken and others like al K have
pointed out adding fruit in the secondary has numerous advantages. At this
point the beer is low in pH, and has alcohol so contamination risks are
minimized. the alcohol will help extract flavor and color and aroma. The
beers that Dan and Ken served where fruit was added in the secondary were
clearly superior to all others. If you puree the fruit first then
"carbonic maceration" is not necessary. Any one familiar with how
cranberries are processed knows that only fruit in good shape survives the
bouncing selection process, so again contamination concerns are minimized
as compared to many other fruits.
I might suggest you split the batch into two vessels. thus you can have
plenty of headspace for the secondary fermentation that the fruit sugars
will provide. A second bucket won't break the bank will it? Also I read
their is a glut of cranberries on the market and prices are expect to be
lower than usual this year. And you might think about using a yeast that
does not form such a large krausen.
Jim Liddil North Haven, CT
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:13:51 -0800
From: "jim williams" <jim&amy@macol.net>
Subject: clearfine
Hi,
I've got some of Siebels Clearfine in my garage. It's been there for about 2
years through winter AND summer..
1) is it still good?
2) How do I use it?
3) How much would I use in 5 gal.?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:07:15 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Beer in Denver
Brewers
My friend Paul Crossley, who is an engineer for Ford in the UK, just called
me to say he is flying to Denver Saturday to for a few days on business.
He wondered what the beer scene was in Denver, but I couldn't help him. If
anyone can send him a tip before 5PM UK time Friday, please
mailto:pcrossl1@ford.com . Tell him I sent you. Paul is a real ale fan
and a fine home brewer, and a fine gentleman, too.
Thanks
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3145, 10/15/99
*************************************
-------
