Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4347
HOMEBREW Digest #4347 Fri 12 September 2003
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Re: real milk stout; tamarind beer ("Chad Stevens")
Re: Thank you Dr. Cone (John Palmer)
Importance of water percentage during the boil ("Steve Smith")
Morland "Hen's Tooth" Clone ("Chris Hart")
Re: Beer for Beer Tasting Party! (larry)
Re: Spent grain bread/note to Gump ("Spencer Tomb")
RE: Building Tap Handles ("Brian Morgan")
Re: I don't like SPAM...changes are working (hollen)
Correction on bread recipe ("Harlan Nilsen")
Re: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes (Michael Owings)
Re: er: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes (Christopher Swingley)
Shelf life of iodophor (Danny Breidenbach)
Bigfoot Barley Wine Clone? (Mark Beck)
RE: Fullers Vintage Ale ("Leonard, Phil")
re: Fullers Vintage Ale ("Mark Tumarkin")
(Randy Ricchi)
Whey In Stout (Mike Lewandowski)
Fortnight of yeast (Ken Schramm)
Fortnight Of Yeast Web Site ("Rob Moline")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:19:50 -0700
From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi@cox.net>
Subject: Re: real milk stout; tamarind beer
Raj:
I love to make cheesecake, mostly because I love to eat cheesecake. When I
lived in Lebo, KS I had two dairy goats and more milk than I knew what to do
with...well I did know what to do with it: I made cheese for cheese cake.
I used citric acid to coagulate the curd and used the whey to make various
wheat beers and stouts. I think I used as much as 50/50 water to whey and
everything converted fine. I haven't done it in a long time and I can't
remember if it was worth the trouble (I do remember it was a lot of
trouble). But it is certainly doable.
Tamarind. Me gusto Tamarindo mucho. Y por eso, I've made two tamarind
beers. Neither was a success. The most recent was a chapotle tamarind
dopplebock. The pucker factor was way up there. I think tamarind has
potential, it's just going to take someone more patient than I to figure the
stuff out. I used one pound raw pods, hulled and seeded, boiled in 1qt.?
water and added to secondary. It was too much. Try 3/4 or 1/2 a pound for
a five gallon batch. Maybe a tamarind Oud Bruin?
FWIW,
Chad Stevens
San Diego, CA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:26:48 -0700
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@altrionet.com>
Subject: Re: Thank you Dr. Cone
Rob had a great idea, putting together a Thank You gift box of
breweriana from all of us that benefitted from his correspondence.
While I am sure it does not contain anything he doesn't already know, I
will send him a signed copy of my book, because I have really
benefitted from his generous advice over the years. He is a nice guy
to chat with at the conferences and MCAB and I am sure he would
appreciate cards and local brewpub T-shirts and the like too.
I could also send him one of these inflatable Briess barley stalk
things that I have laying around here, but he probably has enough of
them already. ;-) I thought they looked good hanging in the living
room, and the kids enjoyed hitting each other with them, but then my
wife came home from the store and I had to put them away. ;-(
John Palmer
john@howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:21:24 -0600
From: "Steve Smith" <sasmith@in-tch.com>
Subject: Importance of water percentage during the boil
How important is it to follow the recipe recommended water percentage
when boiling the wort during extract brewing? I would imagine that if an
amateur like myself chooses to change any part of a recipe I'm working from,
I reduce my chances of obtaining a successful outcome. Nevertheless I will
explain my situation.
I had been brewing extract recipes (including steeped grains) that
called for adding water to total 2.5 gallons of wort for the boil, later
added to cold water to make 5 gallons of beer. I decided to upgrade from a
ceramic coated canning pot brewpot, up to a stainless steel brewpot, and
decided it would be a good idea to buy one that would hold a double batch of
wort, based upon the volume as stated above, which I thought to be typical.
I found a good price for a 26 quart pot and bought it.
Now I want to make 10 gallons of Scotch Ale, but the recipe calls for
bringing the wort-to-be-boiled volume to 3.5 gallons to make five gallons of
beer. A double batch would require 7 gallons of wort, which is 28
quarts..., too much for my brew pot. Thus the question, would it hurt my
beer to reduce the water percentage during the boil, making up for it later
when adding cold water immediately after chilling the wort? Again, common
sense tells me to make two separate batches when a recipe calls for a wort
volume that won't fit in my pot when doubled.
Also, an experienced brewer friend mentioned to me that double batches
aren't necessarily a good idea anyway, because of the longer time it takes
to bring the wort to a boil (on a stovetop), especially after adding the
extract. Is that true? Thanks for clarifying!
Steve A. Smith
Missoula, MT
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:31:16 -0400
From: "Chris Hart" <rhayader@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Morland "Hen's Tooth" Clone
I've been enjoying this digest for some time now and finally, I'm ready
to post a question. Has anyone out there had Morland's "Hen's Tooth"
Ale? My wife brought one home last night from a store in Jacksonville
and we gave it a try. It was very much like an Old Speckled Hen with
more body and a deeper flavor, although I'd swear it's exactly the same
yeast. It was fantastic, IMHO and I immediately thought, "I wonder if
there's a clone recipe out there somewhere..."
I asked her to get more the next time she went to Jax and I would try to
propagate the yeast in the bottom of a couple of the bottles. (Did I
mention it's bottle-conditioned?) Now all I need is a recipe!
I only extract brew right now, but I am willing to move on up to grain.
I know this will be the only way to get the flavor of this beer right.
Can anyone help me out?
Chris Hart
Hart's Valet Drycleaning
1000 NW 51st Terrace
Gainesville, FL 32605
339-0324
rhayader@bellsouth.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:51:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: larry@doubleluck.com
Subject: Re: Beer for Beer Tasting Party!
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:38:04 -0400, "Don Scholl"
<dws@engineeringdimensions.com> requested:
> Good morning! My wife and I are throwing a beer tasting party for our
> friends at the end of February 2004. I will brew all beers being served.
> What I need from everyone are ideas of 4-5 types of beer to serve and what
> food and/or dessert to serve with them.
I have a dessert suggestion! Brew up a nice English stout (not soured) and
use it to make a "Stout Float"! A local brewpub/restaurant had this item on
their menu (before they closed their doors). I do not have the exact
proportions of ingredients, but it was essentially like this:
Into a large glass, place one chewy chocolate brownie and a couple of scoops
of ice cream. [I recall that they used vanilla; chocolate will seem to be
gilding the lilly a touch!] Fill the rest of the glass with stout.
Just in case it is not obvious to someone that (real) chocolate and stout
mix to form a wonderful flavor profile, try this! A few years ago (before I
encountered the "stout float"), I was munching on some chocolate chip
cookies and suddenly I found myself in one of those "Got Milk?" commercials.
The answer was "no", but I did find a bottle of stout in the fridge. Umm,
umm, good!
- ---
Larry Bristol
Bellville, TX
http://www.doubleluck.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:10:41 -0500
From: "Spencer Tomb" <astomb@ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Spent grain bread/note to Gump
Greetings all.
About a year ago I convinced the baker at our local brewpub (The Little
Apple Brewing Company) to resume baking their hamberger buns with some spent
grain in the mix. I can get his bulk baking recipe to share on the Digest
if there is an interest.
Gump? Hi Rob. Just wanted you to know that I am getting back to brewing at
home. I still have notes from some of our conversations.
Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:14:46 -0400
From: "Brian Morgan" <brian-morgan@cinci.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Building Tap Handles
Bob Pelletier asks:
>>Anybody have any good instructions?
I'm not sure where I got this site, but I've used his ideas, and works fine:
www.frugalbrewer.com/articles/taphandle.htm
(for some reason, the site seems down right now, but 2 weeks ago it was
fine...)
Also check out:
www.taphandles.com
Brian
Cincinnati
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: hollen@woodsprite.com
Subject: Re: I don't like SPAM...changes are working
> As a data point...in the few days that Pat made the change to "mask" the
> HBD email addresses my junk email content has dropped by at least 50%.
> I always wondered how I got so much junk in my inbox...now I know.
> Thanks for making the change. It's already made a real difference.
> Marc Sedam
Marc -
You must just have a lucky coincidence. If your address had been
harvested before, it is still being used today unless the spammers get
bounces. Once they glom onto an address, they do not let it go while it
does not bounce.
You have seized on a momentary lull as "fact" and attributed it
incorrectly to what Pat has done.
While I thoroughly laud the move by Pat, we will not see any results for
months, maybe years due to the way spammers "bank" addresses.
respectfully,
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen@woodsprite.com
Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com
Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:11:13 -0500
From: "Harlan Nilsen" <ramnrah@nebi.com>
Subject: Correction on bread recipe
I see that I made a typo on the recipe for spent grain bread. I'm truly
sorry about this and realize I should have proof read it before hitting the
button. At least it was not a mistake on a batch of homebrew.
THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF BREAD FLOUR IS
2.5 CUPS!!!!
Again, my deepest apologies.
Harlan
32nd Street Brewery
Located in the middle of our great nation.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:10:13 -0500
From: Michael Owings <mikey@swampgas.com>
Subject: Re: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes
I've always used Fix's definition for no-sparge brewing See:
http://brewery.org/brewery/library/YMltGF92.html
also see:
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html
for a discussion of no-sparge versus batch sparge. This author (Ken
Schwartz) also recommends using a very thin mash or (better) thinning
the mash prior to runnoff to maximize the first runnings.
My understanding of no-sparge has been that only the first runnings
are taken -- no sparge water is added at all. In the first cite above,
Fix is indeed using more starting mash water, but this is to
compensate for the increased amount of grain (which keeps the
grist/water ratio the same between the two recipes). No charge of
sparge water is added.
I did find a definition identical to yours, however at:
http://www.strandbrewers.org/html/nosparge.htm
In this case, the author asserts that a single (large) charge of hot
water is added prior to the runnoff. Adding to the confusion, other
authors seem to differentiate between "pure no-sparge" and
"no-sparge", where the former involves simply taking the first
runnings, and the latter adding a single charge of hot water prior to
taking the runnings.
As to efficiency question: YMMV, but batch sparging (and here I refer
to taking the first runnings, followed by a large charge of hot water)
has simply not affected my efficiency compared to fly sparging. I am
taking the same amount of runnings either way.
Checking my notes -- Using either technique I got typically in the low
80% range. While the efficiency might occasionally stray (79-80% up to
86-87%) this was never a function of fly-versus batch technique as far
as I can tell (no-sparge is, of course, another story entirely).
Much of this variance may be attributable to measurement error or
inaccurate/oudated/best-guess max extraction info for a particular
ingredient. In any case, lately I've abandoned fly sparging
altogether.
CSwingle writes:
======
No-sparge and batch sparges are less efficient because the sparge
water comes to equilibrium with the sugars in the grain and then you
drain off the mixture (I'm a computer scientist / ecologist, so this
may not be a very scientific description. . .). You won't get all of
the sugars this way because you're not continuously adding fresh water
that has the capacity to absorb and carry additional sugars not
removed earlier in the sparging.
======
While I see your point here, it's ultimately a question of degree. In
the case of batch sparging (at least as I practice it -- first
runnings -- then water charge), this has /never/ been the case. If
there is an efficiency difference, then it is minute at the
homebrewing scale -- at least with my lautering system. As always,
YMMV.
As to batch sparging with only a single large charge, this is not my
usual practice, so I really can't speak from experience. It may be
that draining the richest solution off first and adding a fresh charge
of water is what makes the difference. Here's my best (and perhaps
totally wrong) guess as to why:
Obviously, the sugar solution should be at equilibrium throughout the
lauter tun more or less uniformly (during a batch sparge). The grains
themselves, however, have a tendency to trap a portion of the this
solution, meaning that on a single charge of hot water, a significant
fraction of the solution becomes inaccessible (about, what, .2
gal/lb?) on any single charge of water. It may be that once the first
runnings (the very richest solution) have been taken, the second
charge is sufficently dilute such that the "trapped" portion doesn't
significantly detract from the final gravity.
Assuming a grist of 12 lbs of grain with first runnings already taken
leaving 2.4 gallons trapped in the grain, an addition of 6 gallons of
sparge water for the batch might bring the total liquid volume in the
tun up to 8.4 gallons (of which 2.4 gallons is inaccessible, trapped
in the grains). My guess would be that new 8.4 gallon sugar solution
is sufficently dilute that the remaininder trapped in the grains is
not missed by the time the second runnings are combined with the first
wort. The actual efficiency lost may only be a couple of percentage
points -- probably pretty close to my measurement error.
Cheers -- m
====
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:31:12 -0800
From: Christopher Swingley <cswingle@iarc.uaf.edu>
Subject: Re: er: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes
-S
* -S <-s@adelphia.net> [2003-Sep-09 21:57 AKDT]:
> Christopher Swingley says,
>
> > It is my impression from what I've read on the subject
> > (including the article in the recent Zymurgy) that color isn't
> > affected by efficiency
>
> I can't imagine exactly how to interpret that statement numerically.
Well, what I meant by efficiency is mash efficiency (what percentage of
sugars you are able to extract from grain with a known maximum value --
i.e. 1# 2-row in 1 gallon = 1.037 at 100% efficiency), and the meaning
of my statement was to query whether it is indeed true that the color
you get from grains does not relate in an obvious way with mash
efficiency.
> I *suspect* that statement above means that if you sparge and collect
> N gallons of wort from X lbs of a particular grist that your color
> won't vary widely despite efficiency differences.
Yep. That's what I meant.
> The proportion of 'color' in the early runnings is even
> greater than the relative proportion of extract in these early
> runnings! There is some decent evidence that the malt flavor is also
> more concentrated in the first running than is extract.
Gotcha. So both color and malt flavors come through early in whatever
sparging procedure you're using. The result is that a no-/batch-sparge
recipe, scaled up from a fly sparge recipe will likely be darker and
have more malt flavor, despite having the same gravity. The fact that
you're noting a more concentrated malt flavor is good news, because it
*may* mean that you could scale back the darker malts slightly when
using a less efficient no-/batch-sparge recipe without losing the malt
flavor profile.
> The point is that a change to the brewing process, like undersparging,
> seldom impacts only one beer parameter. It would be nice if we have
> independent control of color, flavor, extract concentration etc ... but we
> don't. You change one and the others inevitably change. You'll need to
> experiment with the batch or undersparging methods and see if you can
> produce desirable results within the interdependent constraints.
Yes, good point. No-/batch-sparging aren't the same as fly sparging,
and you won't get the same beer. Since I find no-/batch-sparging so
much easier, I am curious about what the differences in the final beer
are. From my experience, and what you're saying, it sounds like a
scaled up recipe sparged using one of these simpler methods is likely to
yield a darker, maltier flavored beer. Quantifying how much maltier and
darker would be good, but both of these parameters are hard to
objectively measure.
> As long as I'm on an opinion rant ... Also let's not be slaves to
> fashion. If you make your best tasting pseudo-pils with no-sparge but
> the color is several notches darker than the bohemian ideal - then
> scr*w the style guidelines. If a beer tastes great and looks great
> yet doesn't meet some abstract guideline ... where is the fault ?
> Style classifications are a useful means of separating beers into
> groups of comparables, but a style is not intended to be an end in
> itself.
I completely agree. I don't really care what a "Robust Porter" is
supposed to be. What I do want is to look at my grain bill and my
procedures and be able predict what I'll get when I crack open my first
bottle. Most of this predictive ability comes from personal experience
and experimentation, which I'm all for :), but it's great to hear from
others and their own results.
Thanks for the great information!
Chris
- --
Christopher S. Swingley email: cswingle@iarc.uaf.edu
IARC -- Frontier Program Please use encryption. GPG key at:
University of Alaska Fairbanks www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:02:39 -0500
From: Danny Breidenbach <dbreiden@math.purdue.edu>
Subject: Shelf life of iodophor
Hey,
Any guesses as to the shelf life of iodophor that is not diluted (at
least not beyond its concentration when purchased) and has been kept in
a dark and cold-to-hot-to-everything-in-between place?
- --Danny in West Lafayette, Indiana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:01:38 -0700
From: Mark Beck <beckmk@whitman.edu>
Subject: Bigfoot Barley Wine Clone?
Anyone out there have a good all-grain clone recipe for Bigfoot Barley
Wine? The Sierra Nevada website has a fair amount of information, but I'd
appreciate any input into developing a recipe.
Thanks,
Mark
Walla Walla, WA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:42:19 -0500
From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard@dsionline.com>
Subject: RE: Fullers Vintage Ale
I still have three bottles of this (1999). I wish I had 50.
I think it is considered an old ale.
Philip
[612 251.4 AR] Overland Park, KS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:32:10 -0400
From: "Mark Tumarkin" <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: Fullers Vintage Ale
Greg writes:
"My brother-in-law gave me a boxed bottle of Fullers Vintage Ale (1999). The
label says the bottle can be stored for years. Is it a barley wine? Old
ale? I'm wondering if, at four years of age, it might already be past its
prime, and if I should drink it now. Or is this worth saving for a while
longer?"
I've only had Fullers Vintage Ale once, but remember it as a very nice old
ale/strong ale. It doesn't have the hop level to be a barley wine, though
there's enough to balance the malty sweetness. Lots of caramel, fruity esters,
especially dark fruit (plum/raisin). Not huge, but a strong alcohol
presence.Very nice beer with a beautiful
presentation - both the bottle itself & a very nice wooden box.
The question of age is hard to answer. Do you know how it was stored? Did your
brother-in-law have it for the four years, or buy it off the shelf recently?
Vintage ales can be truly wonderful, especially if cellared properly. Ideally,
you want to store them at a stable cellar temp (50-55 F), in a dry, dark
environment. Unfortunately, they are often not treated well and thus can
sometimes be less wonderful than they could have been (if that makes sense).
Four years is plenty of time for a beer to age; though if treated well, it
can improve with even more aging. It's sort of a crap shoot - whenever you
open a bottle of vintage beer it could have passed its prime, or it could be
getting better & better.
At the end of this month, I'm going to have the opportunity to participate in
a tasting of Thomas Hardy Ale. It will be hosted by Jim Ritchart, one of our
Hogtown Brewers members who has an incredible beer cellar, including a lot of
vintage Belgian beer. This tasting will include 6 or so aged vintages,
including one from 1968 (I believe this was the first year for Thomas Hardy. I
am really looking forward to this experience. It will be an afternoon with a
small group of beer geeks, with truly awesome beer (hopefully in good
condition), paired with aged cheeses......like the old beer commercials said,
guys it doesn't get any better than this!
I'd like to ask a question relating to aging beers. What is your opinion of
the best way to cellar corked beers? With wine, you'd lay the bottle down on
its side to keep the cork from drying out and losing its seal. With beer, the
more common practice seems to be to store them upright. Which do you think is
better? and why?
thanks,
Mark Tumarkin
Hogtown Brewers
Gainesville, FL
and be sure to enter your aged old ales & barleywines in our upcoming Hogtown
Brew-Off,
details and entry info at http://www.hbd.org/hogtown/Brewoff.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:15:29 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@houghton.k12.mi.us>
Subject:
Can anyone here give a decent description of the flavor profile of White
Labs WLP002 (English Ale), and/or White Labs WLP007 (Dry English Ale)?
The website is not much help, as their description for WLP007 is:
(snip) >Clean....similar to WLP002 in flavor profile, but is 10% more
attenuative. This eliminates the residual sweetness...
So we look to the description for WLP002, which states:
This yeast will leave a beer very clear, and will leave some residual
sweetness.
So this tells me that the WLP007 is clean, and dry. That's about it. Sounds
a lot like Wyeast 1056, aka Chico, aka American ale yeast.
Lame flavor descriptions. Can anyone here do better? TIA.
Randy
Hancock, MI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:14:08 -0400
From: Mike Lewandowski <mlew5@charter.net>
Subject: Whey In Stout
I was also interested in the effects of whey in stout. I made a batch of
cheese out of 1 gallon of milk. I then saved all of the whey, and
subsequently added it to the boil of my stout. The thinking was that I
wanted to kill the cheese bacteria before they could do weird things to my
stout.
Well, as far as I and other members of my homebrew club could tell, the
whey didn't add much character. Perhaps more whey was needed. I'm not
sure. It was an interesting experiment. I hope you have more luck.
Mike Lewandowski
Mountain Ale and Lager Tasters
Asheville, NC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:40:15 -0400
From: Ken Schramm <schramk@mail.resa.net>
Subject: Fortnight of yeast
Rob;
Thanks to Dr. Cone and to you for providing this service. I'll drop a
copy of "The Compleat Meadmaker" in the mail for the good Doctor this
weekend.
Such efforts make for better beers and meads. I'm in your debt.
Ken Schramm
Troy, MI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:53:12 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump@mchsi.com>
Subject: Fortnight Of Yeast Web Site
Fortnight Of Yeast Web Site
The "Fortnight of Yeast," by Dr. Clayton Cone has been compiled and is
online @ http://consumer.lallemand.com/danstar-lalvin/fortnightyeast.html
or go to www.lallemand.com , click on "Brewing," then "Homebrewing," then
"Fortnight Of Yeast."
On behalf of Dr. Cone, enjoy!
Special thanks to Brent Riese and Trang Dai Nguyen.
Cheers!
Gump
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4347, 09/12/03
*************************************
-------
