| |
Main
Date: 06 Oct 2006 02:14:57
From: Adam Preble
Subject: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
Awhile back I asked about a 50# sack of steam-crimped barley I got on
the cheap. It didn't malt, but I was wondering if it would be suitable
as an adjunct. One thing going against it was the feed grain is
supposed to have lax standards, and include some nasties. An example
was some chemical or another that supposedly would give me manboobs.
Somehow I think the homebrewing hobby can do that fine enough, but we'll
see.
I asked the supplier about the suitability of the grain, and got an
answer I didn't like. Sure, it wasn't the answer I wanted, but it also
wasn't put in a way I wanted:
"Adam, we purchase ingredients for animal feed production and do not buy
human food grade products and could not recommend or guarantee our
product for human consumption. Thanks for your inquiry and let us know
if you have further questions or needs."
It's for animal feed production? Duh! I am thinking that the
Hefeweizen I made from 100% feed wheat was perfectly fine, and that
wasn't cleaned as thoroughly before packaging as this stuff is. My
inclination is to just try it anyways. I guess at the worst, I can feed
it to women and see if they grow more confident over the next few weeks.
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 02:47:07
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
On Fri, 06 2006 02:14:57 GMT, <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Adam, we purchase ingredients for animal feed production and do not buy
> human food grade products and could not recommend or guarantee our
> product for human consumption. Thanks for your inquiry and let us know
> if you have further questions or needs."
This answer doesn't surprise me. There's no way the feed store is going
to say anything different because of liability. They probably don't
know, so they're going to say "no" because if they guess "yes" and something
bad happens they can get into a lot of trouble.
IMO, why not just get real brewing barley from a homebrew store? It's not
that expensive compared to not knowing what can happen if you brew with non
human food grade ingredients. Personally, I just don't see it as being worth
saving a few bucks. It's your beer though.
The only way I would use feed grain is if I found a reliable source that
would say it is safe for human consumption. In this case, I probably wouldn't
rely on newsgroup posts as a reliable enough source. Anyone have any
friends that work for the FDA?
John.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 03:27:28
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> This answer doesn't surprise me. There's no way the feed store is going
> to say anything different because of liability. They probably don't
> know, so they're going to say "no" because if they guess "yes" and something
> bad happens they can get into a lot of trouble.
It's what I think too, particularly since there's no specifics as to why.
> IMO, why not just get real brewing barley from a homebrew store? It's not
> that expensive compared to not knowing what can happen if you brew with non
> human food grade ingredients. Personally, I just don't see it as being worth
> saving a few bucks. It's your beer though.
I have some of the real stuff too. I just got on this kick. I'm
entertained by making beer from the cheap stuff. At the worst, I don't
lose much if it fails miserably.
> The only way I would use feed grain is if I found a reliable source that
> would say it is safe for human consumption. In this case, I probably wouldn't
> rely on newsgroup posts as a reliable enough source. Anyone have any
> friends that work for the FDA?
I think two things going for is that the grains are being used
indirectly, and the resulting liquid is being boiled for a long time. I
have made a lager use a large quantity of malted feed corn. It had an
apple aroma to entice the deer. I managed to get it all out of it
during the malting, but anything that was left was certainly gone after
the boil.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 07:48:09
From: hankus
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
This MD would have NO fear of using something that will produce a liquid
that will be boiled >10 minutes.Mash a little bit of it and smell to make
sure that it has no unusual odors ("a large quantity of malted feed corn.
It had an
> apple aroma to entice the deer. I managed to get it all out of it" )-safe
> and tasty are two different things
--
Thanks
Hank
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 11:24:29
From: George
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
hankus wrote:
> This MD would have NO fear of using something that will produce a liquid
> that will be boiled >10 minutes.
I would think that boiling would concentrate certain nasties without
diminishing their toxicity, I'm thinking specifically of heavy metals. I
don't know if animal feed standards are any less stringent than food
grade standards in this regard but it would probably be worth checking into.
George
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 18:27:17
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
On Fri, 06 2006 11:24:29 -0700, <mattoleriver@yahoo.com > wrote:
> hankus wrote:
>> This MD would have NO fear of using something that will produce a liquid
>> that will be boiled >10 minutes.
>
> I would think that boiling would concentrate certain nasties without
> diminishing their toxicity, I'm thinking specifically of heavy metals. I
> don't know if animal feed standards are any less stringent than food
> grade standards in this regard but it would probably be worth checking into.
I can think of lots of liquids that I wouldn't feel safe drinking, even if
they were boiled.
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 20:34:19
From: hankus
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
That could safely be consumed by a horse?
--
Thanks
Hank
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrneid878.qri.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Fri, 06 2006 11:24:29 -0700, <mattoleriver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> hankus wrote:
>>> This MD would have NO fear of using something that will produce a liquid
>>> that will be boiled >10 minutes.
>>
>> I would think that boiling would concentrate certain nasties without
>> diminishing their toxicity, I'm thinking specifically of heavy metals. I
>> don't know if animal feed standards are any less stringent than food
>> grade standards in this regard but it would probably be worth checking
>> into.
>
> I can think of lots of liquids that I wouldn't feel safe drinking, even if
> they were boiled.
>
>
> John.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 19:17:47
From: cyberzl1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
> "Adam, we purchase ingredients for animal feed production and do not buy
> human food grade products and could not recommend or guarantee our
> product for human consumption. Thanks for your inquiry and let us know
> if you have further questions or needs."
>
Feed grade vs Food grade is really a matter of semantics. Food grade
needs full traceability and has a higher level of regulation for
foreign contaminants and such.
Having said that, I wouldn't worry about it. I raise "feed grade"
crops and frequently snack on various grains during production(fresh
roasted soybeans are particularly yummy).
I think the only difference in the actual grain would be that feed
grade is allowed to have GMO grain, whereas human consumption grain
does not. You are entitled to your opinion on that, but I personally
have no issue with it.
The contaminants allowed are things like bugs, and other "non-food"
stuff. Again I wouldn't really worry about it.
JW
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2006 12:57:49
From: - - : R A T B o y : - -
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
<cyberzl1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160187467.919912.282080@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>...> The contaminants allowed are things like bugs, and other "non-food"
> stuff. Again I wouldn't really worry about it.
>
> JW
>
Q. Brewmaster, what's this bug doing in my Nut Brown?
A. Buzzin'
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2006 17:14:48
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
Adam Preble <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com >:
>Awhile back I asked about a 50# sack of steam-crimped barley I
>got on the cheap. It didn't malt, but I was wondering if it
>would be suitable as an adjunct. One thing going against it was
>the feed grain is supposed to have lax standards, and include
>some nasties. An example was some chemical or another that
>supposedly would give me manboobs. Somehow I think the
>homebrewing hobby can do that fine enough, but we'll see.
>I asked the supplier about the suitability of the grain, and got
>an answer I didn't like. Sure, it wasn't the answer I wanted,
>but it also wasn't put in a way I wanted:
>"Adam, we purchase ingredients for animal feed production and do
>not buy human food grade products and could not recommend or
>guarantee our product for human consumption. Thanks for your
>inquiry and let us know if you have further questions or needs."
>It's for animal feed production? Duh! I am thinking that the
>Hefeweizen I made from 100% feed wheat was perfectly fine, and
>that wasn't cleaned as thoroughly before packaging as this stuff
>is. My inclination is to just try it anyways. I guess at the
>worst, I can feed it to women and see if they grow more
>confident over the next few weeks.
Livestock on industrial farms are fed all kinds of hormones and
antibiotics. My assumption is that these are put into the feed
at feeding time. I don't know. The comment about "manboobs"
kinda makes you wonder.
You'd think something like that would be on the label. I'd want
to make sure.
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 03:56:37
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
Scott Sellers wrote:
> Livestock on industrial farms are fed all kinds of hormones and
> antibiotics. My assumption is that these are put into the feed
> at feeding time. I don't know. The comment about "manboobs"
> kinda makes you wonder.
>
> You'd think something like that would be on the label. I'd want
> to make sure.
What should be on the label? The hormones and antibiotics or manboobs?
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 04:27:11
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
Adam Preble <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com >:
>Scott Sellers wrote:
>> Livestock on industrial farms are fed all kinds of hormones and
>> antibiotics. My assumption is that these are put into the feed
>> at feeding time. I don't know. The comment about "manboobs"
>> kinda makes you wonder.
>>
>> You'd think something like that would be on the label. I'd want
>> to make sure.
>What should be on the label? The hormones and antibiotics or
>manboobs?
Good luck with it.
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 05:11:49
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
Adam Preble <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com >:
>Scott Sellers wrote:
>> Livestock on industrial farms are fed all kinds of hormones
>> and antibiotics. My assumption is that these are put into the
>> feed at feeding time. I don't know. The comment about
>> "manboobs" kinda makes you wonder.
>>
>> You'd think something like that would be on the label. I'd
>> want to make sure.
>What should be on the label? The hormones and antibiotics or manboobs?
I'd look for a label something like:
"Hey, chucklehead, don't
make beer with this!"
If there isn't one, you're probably ok to proceed.
cheers,
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 06:37:25
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
Scott Sellers wrote:
> I'd look for a label something like:
>
> "Hey, chucklehead, don't
> make beer with this!"
>
> If there isn't one, you're probably ok to proceed.
Maybe it's on the bottom of the inside of the sack . . . :(
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2006 06:39:37
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: I didn't get the answer I wanted from the feed supplier
|
I thought I'd add that at this point, I've brewed a ... ahem ...
"tripel" using mostly this grain. I used amylase enzyme overnight to
get most conversion. I was glad to see it pass the starch test. After
that, I added a little bit of 6-row and special B at 155F to try and get
something more substantial out of it. Since the grain was "heavily
undermodified" (hehe) I did a protein rest.
The boiling was a PITA but it looks like I managed to hit my numbers.
My rule of thumb is to cut 25% off the points contributions for these
feed grains, and that looks to be about right.
My thoughts are that a tripel will have a few months before it's aged
right, and we can sort this all out by then. ;)
|
|
