---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

Contents:
  mexican beers (arthure)
  Re: mthvax.miami.edu ("V70NPT::LENO")
  Very High Terminal Gravity (lbr)
  re: What is your exctract efficiency? (lbr)
  Champagne Yeast and More ??? on dry hopping (rogerl)
   (PLMD000)
  assorted (Joseph Palladino)

Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 04:12:55 -0800
From: sco!arthure at ucscc.UCSC.EDU
Subject: mexican beers

> Personally, I have tried only Corona, Carta Blanca, and Tecate, and
> I find all of them poor excuses for beer.  As we all know, 98% of
> your beer is water, so, garbage-in-garbage-out.

I'm not sure the water is the problem here ... I think you'd
find Dos Equis, Bohemia, or Negra Modelo more acceptable.
These still might not be to your tastes, but I suspect that
judging Mexican beer by Tecate is rather like judging U.S.
beer by Oly.

-arthur

Return to table of contents


Date: 9 Feb 89 08:21:00 EST
From: "V70NPT::LENO" <leno%v70npt.decnet at nusc.ARPA>
Subject: Re: mthvax.miami.edu

  In digest #69 a.e.mossberg mentioned that the digests have
 been archived at mthvax.miami.edu.

 Our host table doesn't have an entry for it. Could he please
 post the Internet node numbers for this machine. Hopefully
 I'm the only one with this problem.

    Thanx,
      Scott J Leno

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 13:48:56 EST
From: lbr at gatech.edu
Subject: Very High Terminal Gravity

Well, I really messed up mashing.  2.5 weeks ago I made a dark lager.
I wanted a sweet beer to match the dark grains and high hop rate; well,
I got it in spades.  Aiming for a starch rest of 155 degF, I overshot
to almost 160.

My beer is clearing (no finings), is aging, and smells and tastes (for
flat new beer) wonderful.  There is no evidence of fermentation.  Another
carboy sitting next to it (containing Pilsner made Sunday) is fermenting
nicely, and the room is holding at 45-50 degF, so there's no reason to
think that I shocked the yeast (Wyeast Danish lager) by temperature.

The original gravity was 1.050.  It is now 1.022!  Yes, twenty-two.

I see the following options:

1. Throw it out and have a good cry.  This seems stupid in light of the
low cost in materials and labor to do #2:

2. Prime it, bottle it, and hope for the best.  If nothing else I may
learn something.

3. Add corn sugar and/or water to lower the gravity.  I guess this will
screw up the balance, though.

4. Brew a complementary batch, with a very low final gravity, and blend them.
This may just be throwing a good brew session after a bad one, though.

5. ????

I'm leaning to #2.  I'll let it sit for a few weeks to make a
final determination that it's not fermenting.  I also have some of the
original bitter wort that I canned; I think I'll put some in a jug
with some yeast and see what *it* ferments out to.  This should prove
that the wort was the problem.

Anybody have any ideas?

- Len Reed

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 13:49:12 EST
From: lbr at gatech.edu
Subject: re: What is your exctract efficiency?

In the Feb 06 digest,
hpfcla!hpcea!hplabs!rutgers!boulder.colorado.edu!akelei!crispy!dwight (Dwight Melcher)
writes about "What is your extract efficiency?"
>"So, the crux of the question is this:  most books seem to imply that
>"ones extract efficiency should be in the 80-90% range, while my extract
>"efficiency is always around 70%.

In the Feb 07 digest, Darryl Richman <darryl at ism780c.isc.com> replies

>Part of the problem here is the 100% extract numbers.  I've got Noonan, and
>he suggests one set of numbers;  I've just bought Dave Miller's new book,
>and he's got another (higher) set.  I'd like to see some brewing industry
>book that actually discusses this and gives a baseline.

I've got Noonan, Miller's first book, and Line's Big Book.  Is there any
reason for me to buy Miller's new book?  I'd have to mail order it; I
can't leaf through it in the store to see if I like it. )-:

> I don't usually worry about percentage efficiency for this reason.  I do look
> at my extract per pound of grist per gallon of water.  As my technique has
> become more refined, the numbers keep creeping up.  For recipe formation,
> I used to just lump everything but any black grains together and figure
> 1.030 per pound per gallon.... Lately I've been getting 1.032 out of beers
> with no dark grain.

I get 1.030.  After reading the initial posting I got out Noonan's book
and figured that this was .65 pounds per pound of malt: 65%.  I hadn't
used Noonan's method because I was happy using Alan Tobey's method
(see Fall '81 zymurgy) that figures SG per pound per gallon.  He says
28-32, which I get.  I also didn't use Noonan's method because he
prefers professional brewering measures like Balling and pounds of
extract per gallon.  But mostly (pet peeve) his formulas are written
like IRS forms.  What brain dead editor thinks that persons who buy
a book this technical can't deal with simple formulas expressed in
algebraic terms?  He gives a formula for computing the volume of a
cylinder that's 8 or so lines long!  ("Multiply line 3 by 3.14" etc.)

> "Here are some general areas that probably affect ones extract efficiency
> "and my humble observations about my techniques:
> "
> "	* Grain Grinding - I use a Corona mill.  Perhaps I'm not grinding the
> "		grains finely enough?  From what I've seen of other grists, my grind
> "		appears OK.

> A balance you must achieve is grinding as finely as you can and still being
> able to sparge in a reasonable amount of time.  Our shop bought a small
> professional grain grinder last year and I think it does a wonderful job.
> Before that, a club project built one out of a motor, two rolers from a
> store's checkout-counter conveyor belt that had been junked, and some sheet
> metal for a hopper;  it also worked well after two passes.

I use a grain mill.  All the books say this is a compromise.

> "	* Mashing: I always get a negative iodine test within 15-30 minutes of
> "		reaching saccharification temperatures, so I'm confident conversion 
> "		is complete before I sparge.

> Don't you find it interesting that most books (Dave Line, Greg Noonan, and now
> Dave Miller) mention to check for conversion after an hour?  I, too, get quick
> conversions.  Sometimes I have gotten a negative response within 10 minutes
> of achieving saccharification temperatures.

Me too.  Though of course I leave it longer to get that maltose I need.
Miller's first book said don't use this test since husks can react and give
a false positive reading.  I do the test (it's trivial to do) but I
consider it worthless. :-)

> "	* Sparging: I suspect this may have the greatest influence on the final
> "		extract efficiency.  My sparging technique follows Noonan's
> "		book reasonably closely, and my lauter-tun is a "zapap" style
> "		(that is, two 5 gallon buckets, one inside the other).

> I have built one of the "hacksawed copper tubing manifold inside a picnic
> cooler" types of lauter tuns.  I recycle about 2 gallons of wort before it runs
> clear.  At first I ended sparging when the outflow ceased to have any sweet
> flavor left.  Then I got Noonan's book and he recommends stopping when the
> wort reaches 1.008 SG (after adjusting for 60F).  This turned out to be further
> than I had been sparging.  Another book (lost to my mind at the moment)
> suggested stopping before the pH went above 6.0;  this turns out to be beyond
> SG 1.008.  So now I don't worry and collect enough for the boil and topping up
> during the boil.  This may be different for you depending on your water.
> You ARE treating your sparge water, aren't you?

Exactly what I do.  I often stop sparging sooner that I "should."  So
what--my time is far more important that achieving a slightly more
efficient extract.  Noonan implies that the cooler method that serves
you and me well is not as good as one where the filter bed is deep.  But
it really is nice.  My first method was Miller's first book grain bag
method.  A real pain by comparison.

> "So, if everybody else is getting extract efficiencies in the 70% range,
> "I'll just relax and assume these other sources are a little off.
> "Otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing your techniques that lead to
> "a higher extract efficiency.

> Using the numbers from Noonan's Table 20 as 100% efficiency values, I'm getting
> pretty close to 100% (I get a 1.032 from a 90% 2 row and English Pale mash).
> But I've seen other values quote 1.036-38 as 100%, and so I figure I'm getting
> in the mid-80% area.  But once again, contradictory numbers make me wary,
> and I'd really like to find a brewing industry source for these.

Did I compute this wrong?  I computed 1.030 as .65 lb extract / 1 lb malt, which
is far lower than the .80 Noonan says I should get.  My reading of his
book is that you're getting in the high 60s, nowhere near 80.

Noonan's book reads like it came from industry sources.  Their extracts have
got to be better than ours: better equipment and procedures, and more
incentive, too.  I don't really care if I throw a little sugar out with
the spent grain.

- Len Reed

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 15:31:30 EST
From: rogerl at Think.COM
Subject: Champagne Yeast and More ??? on dry hopping

First , an apology to Dr. Andrews.  I didn't make sure my brain was
engaged prior to releasing my hands to reply about the yeast issue.
Oh well.  But while on the subject, I mentioned I bottled a kit of
root beer about 4 weeks back.  Well to see if I had any 12oz. time
bombs lurking in my cellar, I opened one to see where the carbonation
had gotten to.  Well it hasn't gotten far at all in this time.  There
was perceivable carbonation just starting, but *just* preceivable.
Therefore I would hazard a guess that the champagne yeast is not as
vigorous as _beer_ yeast.(there I got it right this time)  So I think
using champagne yeast for these applications appears to be a better
bet.  

Now for ideas and questions about dry hooping.  What about using hops
pellets?  I would think that the leaves would harbor a plethora of
badnicks.  Would the use of the pellets be any better?  Could you
microwave the pellets to gain safety?  Since the pellets are just a
concentrated version of the leaf stuff would there be a gain or loss
with this method?  I'm really interested in making a dry hopped brew,
but with all of this concern of infection I would hate to get burned
like so many other people have.

Roger Locniskar

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 17:16:20 EST
From: jhersh at rdrc.rpi.edu (Jay Hersh)

I think Mr. Mossberg has misinterpreted my response on this. By commercial 
brewers I meant any brewery which bottles and sells their product. Yes 
many commercial breweries ferment out, then filter, then inject CO2 into
the beer at bottling time. This is how the really big boys do it.

It is as I stated completely possible to ferment the beer, transfer it to
a conditioning tank where it is allowed to carbonate naturally, and clarify.
Then one of two things can be done. The beer can be bottled straight off,
or it can be filtered on its way into the bottle. It also occurs that some 
brewers filter on the way from the fermentation tank to the conditioning
tank. The reason to filter after conditioning is that at the end of 
conditioning the temperature of the beer is typically lowered. This allows
the CO2 formed to dissolve into the beer better and also causes protein
and tannin to precipitate. If the beer is not chilled the protein and tannin
will remain in suspension. By chilling the beer the precipitate (known to 
homebrewers as chill haze) is forced to form. It may settle out, but more 
typically it must be filtered as a precitpitate.

-jay h

Return to table of contents


Date:        THU 09 FEB 1989 18:01:00 EST
From: PLMD000 <PLMD%PACE.BITNET at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: 

i would like to scribe to you magazine .
 i am very interested in drinking and making beer and was suprised to
see that there was a articleon your magazine in the cms system.
my code is sprg9042 at pace

thanks for your time

i am a new cms user and i hope i am subcribing right

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 22:40:12 EST
From: palladin at moore.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Palladino)
Subject: assorted

On Wed. Al Korzonas asked for a table relating specific gravity 
at various temps. to that at 60 F.  Is this what your after?

Temperature (F)        Fudge Factor
____________________________________________
	50		subtract 0.5
	60		0.
	70		add 1
	77		add 2
	84		add 3
	95		add 5
       105		add 7

These factors are thousanths of a unit, e.g. for a measurement
of 1.042 at 70 degrees the true reading is 1.043

Malt Extract Recipes:

A month or so ago I asked for advice and recipes for Pale Ales.
I received exactly NO responses.  Perhaps I was too restrictive.
How about any decent recipes for ANY beers resembling:
	ALES
	LAGERS esp. Pilsner Urquell contestors

My experience with homebrewing to date has been great success
with a John Bull Bitter Ale kit and drinkable but not worth the
effort brews by mixing specialty grains like a pound or so of
crystal malt with unhopped malt extracts and adding leaf hops.
I tried a recipe straight out of Papazian's book and didn't
experiment, Palalia Pale Ale.  It's pretty good but overhopped.
Perhaps I will be assailed with responses stating that I can only
expect great beers by mashing.  I hope not.

So, how about it? 

CAN ANYONE OUT THERE MAKE A DECENT EXTRACT BEER?????????????????

Thank you in advance.

JP

Return to table of contents

---