# Defining A 'toucan' Brew



## Brewtus (28/4/07)

I have started doing mostly 'Toucans' lately and it seems there is a blurred line from two kit cans to pure extract brewing. Most of my tucans have been one kit and one LME. The hop levels are about right (or you can add some extra without over hopping), the head is better and it tastes better that a sh*t load of sugar. The expensive sugar is full of dried malt extract anyway. For about $9 for a Coopers 1.5kg tin compared to about $5 for the brew enhancer, the $4 is worth it. My theory is they suggest BH as it is the cheapest way to make it taste passable to a new brewer. James Squires premium just uses one tin with less hops and no sugar to make 11.5 litres.

My question to the AHB community is this -does a brew of one prehopped kit and one unhopped liquid malt extract count as 'toucan' ( I think it does) or should it have its own name like 'one each way' or "kit'n'can" or 'one hopped toucan'?

:unsure: 

Suggestions are welcome.


----------



## Wortgames (28/4/07)

I don't think there's an 'official' definition of a toucan brew, but my preference would be for it to mean 2 cans of hopped extract.

A 'kit & kilo' can already mean a kilo of sugar, dextrose, brew booster, DME or LME. The fact that the extra fermentables weigh more than a kilo, or happen to come in a can rather than a bag, is not worthy of a special name IMO.

Using 2 hopped extract cans is a different beast altogether though. It can be made with ingredients found at the back of the cupboard or in the least well-stocked supermarket, and the double dose of hops opens up the potential for creativity or disaster.

IMHO a 'toucan' brew should mean 'kit & kit' rather than 'kit & kilo'.

...2c etc etc.


----------



## blackbock (28/4/07)

I would tend to agree with Wortgames - to me a "toucan" brew implies using two _hopped_ kits (as available in the supermarket.) I was under the impression that the art of making a "toucan" was choosing the right combination of available hopped kits without making an unpalatably sweet or bitter end result.

Also, I think that "extract brewing" to me at least, means starting out with only _unhopped_ extract and boiling up your own choice of hops for bittering and flavouring purposes.

In the end though, the difference we're talking about amounts to only a small amount of hop extract.


----------



## Wortgames (28/4/07)

blackbock said:


> Also, I think that "extract brewing" to me at least, means starting out with only _unhopped_ extract and boiling up your own choice of hops for bittering and flavouring purposes.



I think it can get a bid muddy when we try to define 'extract' brewing. In the US, for example, a 'kit' implies a box of ingredients which includes things like cracked malt or DME and hop pellets.

So if 'extract' means pure unhopped LME or DME, and a 'kit' means a 'package of ingredients', then what do we call hopped extract from the supermarket?

HLME (Hopped Liquid Malt Extract)
HEB (Hopped Extract Base)

???


----------



## Brewtus (28/4/07)

WortGames said:


> I don't think there's an 'official' definition of a toucan brew, but my preference would be for it to mean 2 cans of hopped extract.
> 
> A 'kit & kilo' can already mean a kilo of sugar, dextrose, brew booster, DME or LME. The fact that the extra fermentables weigh more than a kilo, or happen to come in a can rather than a bag, is not worthy of a special name IMO.
> 
> ...



Good point. This way Toucan implies a new level of risk and adventure. i.e. chance to really stuff it or come out with a cracking brew. It is also simple and takes advantage of supermarket specials.



blackbock said:


> I would tend to agree with Wortgames - to me a "toucan" brew implies using two _hopped_ kits (as available in the supermarket.) I was under the impression that the art of making a "toucan" was choosing the right combination of available hopped kits without making an unpalatable sweet or bitter end result.
> 
> Also, I think that "extract brewing" to me at least, means starting out with only _unhopped_ extract and boiling up your own choice of hops for bittering and flavouring purposes.
> 
> In the end though, the difference we're talking about amounts to only a small amount of hop extract.



OK so from now on, I at least will alway take TOUCAN to mean two kits and nothing else. Anything different is either extract, where no prehopped kits are used and hops are added by the brewer (this has always been the case) and Kit & Kilo has one prehopped kit and whatever.

I still think the difference between using a tin of LME and a kilo of powder is significant.


----------



## Paleman (28/4/07)

" Defining a Toucan Brew "

Using two hopped cans, its that simple  

I've done a couple, one crap, one good. Both of them were syrupy. The better of the two was two Grumpy's low bittered cans. Added some hops for flavour. Turned out very similiar to James Squire Amber. A little thicker....but nice.


----------



## InCider (28/4/07)

Brewtus said:


> I at least will alway take TOUCAN to mean two kits and nothing else. Anything different is either extract, where no prehopped kits are used and hops are added by the brewer (this has always been the case) and Kit & Kilo has one prehopped kit and whatever.
> 
> I still think the difference between using a tin of LME and a kilo of powder is significant.



I'm with you Brewtus. Two kits ie Stout + Dark Ale =






No worries :beerbang: 

InCider.


----------



## gavpk (29/4/07)

Paleman said:


> " Defining a Toucan Brew "
> 
> Using two hopped cans, its that simple
> 
> I've done a couple, one crap, one good. Both of them were syrupy. The better of the two was two Grumpy's low bittered cans. Added some hops for flavour. Turned out very similiar to James Squire Amber. A little thicker....but nice.



i'd be interested to have a look at that recipe if ya got time to dig it out

cheers :beer: 

Gav


----------



## brettprevans (30/4/07)

WortGames said:


> I don't think there's an 'official' definition of a toucan brew, but my preference would be for it to mean 2 cans of hopped extract.
> 
> A 'kit & kilo' can already mean a kilo of sugar, dextrose, brew booster, DME or LME. The fact that the extra fermentables weigh more than a kilo, or happen to come in a can rather than a bag, is not worthy of a special name IMO.
> 
> ...



Its an interesting topic, especially if you go down the path of toucan plus extras.... I've currently got a thread on clones of Speight's Old Dark 5 Malt beer (www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15174) and the issue of it being such a complex brew needing more malt flavour got me thinking of use a toucan brew with extra ie Muntons 3kg Highland Heavy Ale & Muntons 3.6 Smugglers Ale, plus small amount of other malts for flavour (rather than %alc) and other bits and pieces.

Given that a toucan is by definition '2 cans and nothing else', what do you get when you combine 2 cans of Premium Muntons (which is normally used as 1 x 3.6kg can of Muntons and nothing else)???? I guess if nothing else its a bloody expensive experiment.


----------



## Wortgames (30/4/07)

citymorgue2 said:


> Given that a toucan is by definition '2 cans and nothing else'



I wouldn't agree with that - I would say a toucan has at its base 2 cans of hopped extract.

You can put whatever other bits in there you like IMO. Whether you want to call that an 'augmented toucan' is up to you, but I reckon if it contains two kits it's a toucan.


BTW I've just finished a Cascade 'Imperial Voyage Pale Ale' toucan, nothing added, diluted it a bit in the keg though, and it has been delicious. I'll definitely do some more of that...

:beer:


----------



## brettprevans (30/4/07)

BTW I've just finished a Cascade 'Imperial Voyage Pale Ale' toucan, nothing added, diluted it a bit in the keg though, and it has been delicious. I'll definitely do some more of that...

:beer:
[/quote]

What did you use. Im always on the lookout for good brews. Just building a library of recipes to keep me busy. Do you have any 'tasting notes' for it?


----------



## Wortgames (30/4/07)

citymorgue2 said:


> What did you use. Im always on the lookout for good brews. Just building a library of recipes to keep me busy. Do you have any 'tasting notes' for it?



No, I tend to be very brutal when it comes to extract brewing - I make it a point not to invest any time or energy really, it's just something I do to keep the stocks up.

Here's the 'recipe':

_Take 2 cans of the Cascade 'Imperial Voyage' pale ale. Dump and stir. Take no gravity readings.

Add both packs of yeast and allow to ferment around 18C for 2 weeks.

Leave in primary, drop temp to about 4C for a further 2 weeks.

Transfer to keg. Taste. If too thick add water.

Carbonate and serve.
_

:super: 


In all I probably made 28 - 30 litres I suppose.

It was a lovely deep copper colour, with a nice creamy head, a decent malt profile and what I thought a nicely balanced bitterness.

It was all gone far too quickly for my liking :angry:


----------



## brettprevans (1/5/07)

WortGames said:


> No, I tend to be very brutal when it comes to extract brewing - I make it a point not to invest any time or energy really, it's just something I do to keep the stocks up.
> 
> Here's the 'recipe':
> 
> ...



No fuss beer. Gotta love that! I will give it a crack. Thanks for the info. Although no kegs for me yet, so bottle away i will.


----------



## Wortgames (1/5/07)

I probably wouldn't be quite so slapdash if I was bottling - I'm sure it would still be fine but I'd be tempted to pay more attention to things like gravity. If nothing else, the extra effort involved in bottling probably justifies taking a bit more care.

One of the great things about kegging is that it allows you to be really lazy, because you can always tweak it later - if the gravity is high add water, and if the ferment was stuck and takes off again in the keg its no big deal.


----------



## RobboMC (1/5/07)

blackbock said:


> I would tend to agree with Wortgames - to me a "toucan" brew implies using two _hopped_ kits (as available in the supermarket.) I was under the impression that the art of making a "toucan" was choosing the right combination of available hopped kits without making an unpalatably sweet or bitter end result.
> 
> Also, I think that "extract brewing" to me at least, means starting out with only _unhopped_ extract and boiling up your own choice of hops for bittering and flavouring purposes.
> 
> In the end though, the difference we're talking about amounts to only a small amount of hop extract.




IMHO there is a level between the outright beginner doing 'dump and stir' and full extract brewing. 
Brewtus makes a good point that the evolution of a brewer from doing 'toucan' brews to kit plus unhopped extract to full extract is a blurred one. I have found that kit plus unhopped can brews are too malty and so I end up with a 50/50 brew, 50% kit and 50% self-hopped extract. Am I extract brewing - No, cause I'm using a kit. Am I doing kit and kilo - well yes and no. 

So I reckon there is a definate level between straight K&K and extract brewing. You can call it kits and bits, kit plus, kit kilo and more. You can make some great beer quite easily with this method.

Certainly the difference in the result of using a kilo of cane sugar with your kit compared to using a couple of kilos of extract that is suitably hopped by the brewer is significant, very significant indeed.


----------



## Wortgames (1/5/07)

RobboMC said:


> Am I extract brewing - No, cause I'm using a kit. Am I doing kit and kilo - well yes and no.



I would say that you are definitely extract brewing. The fact that some of that extract already has a bit of hop oil and kiln colour in it is irrelevant IMO.

I would say that k&k is a subset of extract brewing. In other words, all k&k brewers are extract brewers, but not all extract brewers are k&k brewers. It would probably rely on the honour system for true k&k brewers (ie, a tin and a kilo of something) to differentiate themselves from other extract brewers that use more complicated ingredients.

So, if the basis for your beer is malt extract, wet or dry, hopped or unhopped, then you are an extract brewer. If all you do is open a tin and follow the instructions, well then you are a k&k extract brewer. If you steep grains then you are a partial mash extract brewer. If you just use extract but tweak your recipes with additional hops or other ingredients, you are an extract brewer with no further specification (or perhaps kits-and-bits).

That's what I reckon anyway.

Not that any of this matters in the slightest, I'm just enjoying the semantics :beer:


----------



## Brewtus (4/5/07)

The point I am trying to make is that dump and stir has little creative input, toucan has a bit more, 'kit and can' or 'kits and bits' requires a better understanding and can twist a brew from what the kit was meant to be to something more interesting and, hopefully, better. More risk, more skill, more fun. 

For full extract brewing you need to either have a good recipe or know what you are doing. It also takes longer, may need chilling which means dealing with hot and cold break, proper hopping, more equipment etc. Even more risk, more skill, more fun. 

It is a learning process that makes brewing a hobby you can grow with. There are many paths to AG brewing by whatever method and this is one part of one path.

edit - syntax


----------



## PostModern (4/5/07)

WortGames said:


> If you steep grains then you are a partial mash extract brewer.



I beg to differ. A partial *mash* brewer would need to have a significant portion of their fermentables being derived from a _mash_ of base malts. Steeping Xtal, choc etc is not mashing as such. There is no conversion going on. It is still extract brewing, with specialty malts.

Just semantics?


----------



## Wortgames (4/5/07)

PostModern said:


> I beg to differ. A partial *mash* brewer would need to have a significant portion of their fermentables being derived from a _mash_ of base malts. Steeping Xtal, choc etc is not mashing as such. There is no conversion going on. It is still extract brewing, with specialty malts.
> 
> Just semantics?



That's probably a fair point. My understanding was that a 'partial' just meant a combination of extract and grains, and that the grains were there to add authentic colour and flavour more than fermentable sugars. Are you saying that it needs to be base malt, and properly mashed to provide a significant proportion of the fermentables, to be considered 'partial mashing'?

Would there be many brewers who go to all that trouble just for part of the wort and then add extract? It seems like a lot of work, but I agree that dunking a bagful of chocolate malt hardly sounds worthy of the term 'mash'.

I love semantics :beer:


----------



## JCG (4/5/07)

IMO

A kk brewer is some who uses a kit plus what ever from a hbs or supermarket. This would differ from a tuocan brewer who uses 2 kits. I dont believe a can of unhopped malt extract is a kit as it has no yeast or hops, I put this forward as a "kit" on it own will produce something kind of beer (malt, hops, yeast and water) the fact we add a kilo to the kit makes it more tasty. Thus only using 2 kits can really be a tuocan brew IMO. . I would go as far as saying adding steeped speciality grains would be a derivative of extract brewing as we are only extracting the sugary goodness from the grains. I believe these would all be forms of extract brewing. 

Moving on to partials I totally agree with PostMordern. Its all about the conversion.



> A partial mash brewer would need to have a significant portion of their fermentables being derived from a mash of base malts. Steeping Xtal, choc etc is not mashing as such. There is no conversion going on. It is still extract brewing, with specialty malts.



But lets not get carried away with termanology and loss focus on making great beers! Thats my 2 cents.

JCG


----------



## PostModern (4/5/07)

WortGames said:


> That's probably a fair point. My understanding was that a 'partial' just meant a combination of extract and grains, and that the grains were there to add authentic colour and flavour more than fermentable sugars. Are you saying that it needs to be base malt, and properly mashed to provide a significant proportion of the fermentables, to be considered 'partial mashing'?
> 
> Would there be many brewers who go to all that trouble just for part of the wort and then add extract? It seems like a lot of work, but I agree that dunking a bagful of chocolate malt hardly sounds worthy of the term 'mash'.
> 
> I love semantics :beer:



I used to mash 2-3Kg of grain and top up the fermenter with extract. I never managed to collect all the runnings down to 1.010 runoff, as I brewed in two pots on the stove-top, so there was a fair amount of extract added to make up gravity. I made some really nice beer in my years of brewing this way. I copied what some blokes in the US calling themselves "partial mashers" were doing. 

Extract brewers in the US have a much wider range of extracts available to them, including liquid Munich extract, etc. When I was doing it, I used the mash to get munich, choc, etc flavours that you couldn't get in a tin but needed more than steeping some Crystal.

There is a group of US guys who seem to just steep specialty grains and add extract of differing colours or munich extracts and go the full volume boil with hop additions etc. I made an all extract American wheat this way when I had my kettle ready but not a big mash tun. Was a little thin, it coulda done with some crystal or cara to make up body. The yeast ripped thru the extract like nothing.

Anyway, I diverge. My classification (if forced to put every method in a box) would go something like this:

K+K = K+K. Could include dry hopping. No boiling.

Kits and bits: hopped kit with extract or other fermentables. May involve steeping specialty and/or boiling hops.

Extract: Like K+B but without kits. All hops come from a boil of hops in extract.

Partial mash: Part of fermentables comes from mashing base malts, plus extract. Boil with hops for bittering, flavour and aroma additions.

AG: well we all know what that is. Can include sugars and other adjuncts.

But what would I do with my old Oatmeal stout recipe that involved mashing base malts with specialty grains and quick oats then adding a Coopers Stout kit?

I just like classifying things, I suppose. Accounts for my being a BJCP fanboi.



JCG said:


> But lets not get carried away with termanology and loss focus on making great beers! Thats my 2 cents.
> 
> JCG



I hear you :beerbang:


----------



## boingk (4/5/07)

IMHO, I'd venture to say that 'toucan' brews are essentially all-malt brewing. After all, thats what gives them generally better body, head retention and overall quality when compared to a kit plus additives such as dextrose, maltodextron and powdered malt. 

I did an all malt Becks knock-off a few weeks ago, and consumed a few of them prior to having the first bar night back at uni for the term...not bad. 3kg X-Tract hopped kit, plus 12g of Hallertau hops steeped for 10 minutes in boiling water. Made to 23L. Simple as that!

If you want to get technical you can save a cup of the extract and glad-wrap it to preserve while the rest ferments. Then just divvy up that cup when it comes to carbonation time - true all-malt home brewing, kit style.


----------



## Wortgames (5/5/07)

JCG said:


> But lets not get carried away with termanology and loss focus on making great beers! Thats my 2 cents.


But this thread is all about arguing the terminology isn't it?! I know it's petty and utterly pointless - but a couple of us are having fun with it, and we're not stopping anyone else talking about brewing.


In trying to pigeonhole different types of brewer, I have to say using the term 'kit' to mean a can of hopped extract doesn't really sit well with me. It's not much of a 'kit' is it - it's one tin, with a packet of yeast.

As I said earlier, in the US, a 'kit' usually means a box of separate ingredients for brewing a particular style of beer, with measured out portions of hops and specialty malts and grains or extract as required. That sounds much more like a 'kit' to me, and I suspect we could see things like that becoming more commonplace here too, so I think it would be good to find a different term for a supermarket tin.

As it is, an American 'kit' brewer is a totally different thing to an Australian 'kit' brewer, and it would be nice not to have that potential for confusion.


----------



## Wortgames (5/5/07)

boingk said:


> IMHO, I'd venture to say that 'toucan' brews are essentially all-malt brewing. After all, thats what gives them generally better body, head retention and overall quality when compared to a kit plus additives such as dextrose, maltodextron and powdered malt.



As I recall, toucan brewing actually started off as being a fairly lazy, cheap way to get a better quality brew without having to go to the LHBS. When I first tried it I hadn't heard of it elsewhere, and it wasn't something I was especially proud of - it seemed a pretty 'bogan' thing to do in my opinion, but something told me it would probably work and I liked the idea of it being all-malt.

It just so happened that the resulting beers could turn out surprisingly well (I remember my legendary 'NF Draught' - made from 2 cans of No Frills Draught, at the grand price of about $7 a tin. We must have drunk a thousand litres of that stuff). Somewhere along the line, toucan brews became acceptable, and then almost honourable. It's kind of amusing to see them described as 'superior' :super: 


I have no personal objection to anyone adding extras to a toucan brew, but to me, a true blue toucan will always be made from nothing other than 2 tins of goop from the local IGA, preferably whatever's on special :beer:


----------



## blackbock (5/5/07)

boingk said:


> IMHO, I'd venture to say that 'toucan' brews are essentially all-malt brewing.



Canned goop is not malt. It's malt extract. The same goes for the dried stuff - despite what my LHBS tells me, that coloured stuff in bags is not malt, it's dried Malt Extract. Malt is malted grain.


----------



## boingk (5/5/07)

> Malt is malted grain.



Well, yes and no. Grain naturally germinates and starts to convert its starches in sugars to feed the seedling until it has leaves.

What malting is, is the process of soaking the grain so as to start this process as occurs in nature. What then happens is it is allowed to proceed to a certain point and then the grain is dried and [unless its light/lager malt] roasted. 

Mashing and reheating the grain once the malting process has been carried out will release the the malty goodness - it is this 'extract' that is used in making beer, and is actually 100% pure natural malty goodness...at least, as far as I'm aware.


----------



## tangent (5/5/07)

> Both of them were syrupy.


 interesting point. Cans of goo are supposed to be less fermentable because they're designed originally to go with a kilo of highly fermentable sugar which thins and dries everything out. For a thick beer the Coopers Stout would IMO be the ultimate toucan brew.


----------



## Mr Bond (5/5/07)

When you consider that they mash @ up to 75c as found here, its not surprising that extract brews are fuller in body and mouthfeel.
Thats why it is impossible to make a real lager with extracts(no matter what yeast and hop combo).


----------



## Wortgames (5/5/07)

tangent said:


> Cans of goo are supposed to be less fermentable because they're designed originally to go with a kilo of highly fermentable sugar which thins and dries everything out.



That's an interesting point too - I had never considered that. I always figured that your average tin of goo was simply LME with a bit of coloured malt extract and hop extract added. It never occurred to me that they deliberately increased the body to compensate for the addition of sugar.

Is it a fact?

I know that apparently, all malt extracts are not equal. Some should really be boiled by the homebrewer and others are fine just to be diluted. I was reading something about this very subject a week or two back, wish I could remember where.


----------



## tangent (5/5/07)

radical brewing maybe (actually, mr bond informed me of it first here on AHB a few years ago!)

once again Mr Bond.... rehahahaha


----------



## Brewtus (6/5/07)

Gee it is good to see such a simple question has draged out some interesting discussion. 

Do suppliers just use straight LME and then add hop oil or do they mash properly, boil with hops added at the correct intervals and then concentrate the brew to a loverly goo? 
Do they design the mix for a kilo of sugar or is it that they make what ever and specify as much sugar as they can get away with so the punters get a product at a price?


----------



## blackbock (6/5/07)

boingk said:


> Well, yes and no. Grain naturally germinates and starts to convert its starches in sugars to feed the seedling until it has leaves.
> 
> What malting is, is the process of soaking the grain so as to start this process as occurs in nature. What then happens is it is allowed to proceed to a certain point and then the grain is dried and [unless its light/lager malt] roasted.
> 
> Mashing and reheating the grain once the malting process has been carried out will release the the malty goodness - it is this 'extract' that is used in making beer, and is actually 100% pure natural malty goodness...at least, as far as I'm aware.



But the toucans that we are talking about are actually concentrated malt extract, which has been dehydrated somehow. They are not the same as the syrup that comes from the mashing process you describe above.
The heating and drying process caramelises them to a degree and changes their fermentability.

Calling goop "malt" is akin to calling dried milk powder "milk" - they are not the same thing, and certainly don't taste the same. 

But at least we basically agree that malt-based beer is better than sucrose/dextrose/maltodextrin chemical soup! :lol:


----------



## Wortgames (6/5/07)

Brewtus said:


> Do suppliers just use straight LME and then add hop oil or do they mash properly, boil with hops added at the correct intervals and then concentrate the brew to a loverly goo?


I think the answer to this question is in the price. I don't think there's any way you could do a full mash with 'real' hops etc and then boil it down into a tin that could retail for under a tenner.

I suspect there are only a small number of manufacturers that have the facilities to produce malt extract, which may or may not be primarily intended for the homebrew market - food manufacturers use a hell of a lot of the stuff, and given that things like breakfast cereals and mars bars are all made with malt extract it would be entirely possible that homebrew concentrates are merely a sideline and not big enough to have any clout with the basic extract production process.

It would be nice to hear from someone who knows for sure, but my guess is that the base malt extract itself is a relatively generic product, and probably wouldn't differ from kit to kit - it would just depend on which producer it came from. Then the kit manufacturer would add a few colours and flavours to tweak it into a specific style and stick it in a tin with a sachet of yeast under the lid.


----------



## blackbock (6/5/07)

WortGames said:


> That's an interesting point too - I had never considered that. I always figured that your average tin of goo was simply LME with a bit of coloured malt extract and hop extract added. It never occurred to me that they deliberately increased the body to compensate for the addition of sugar.
> 
> Is it a fact?



Wortgames this topic was also touched upon in another thread recently in which MHB was discussing sugars. I think it was here.

Given that nearly every can I've seen around tells you to use "brewing sugar" with these kits, it seems very convenient to the can manufacturers that sugar also reduces the body somewhat. It could just be a coincidence, but I think there could be something behind it. 

It would be nice if Coopers and the others provided more information on the subject, but I guess its a bit out of the scope of the average K+K brewer. In reality most people don't want to try anything more than the basic K+K.


----------



## boingk (6/5/07)

> It would be nice if Coopers and the others provided more information on the subject, but I guess its a bit out of the scope of the average K+K brewer. In reality most people don't want to try anything more than the basic K+K



Definitely be great if we could be provided with some info...I mean, we're the ones using the products! I personally would like to know exactly what I'm doing, and with what ingredients, so I can produce a more enjoyable beverage 

The 'in reality...' comment is probably true - I'm fairly satisfied with my efforts so far with just using K&K methods. Hell, I use white sugar to prime instead of dextrose and I'm happy. That said, I do enjoy researching different and sometimes more advanced recipes, brew modifications and techniques. I don't think I'll be venturing down the AG road within the next few years, but maybe eventually. 

For now, moving on to a partial mash would be the most advanced thing I'd attempt - which I probably will within the next few brews...curiosity of how much better things can be is taking hold!


----------

