| |
Main
Date: 01 Aug 2006 08:23:12
From: Jim
Subject: Raising your OG
|
Is it recommended to add sugar before fermenting if you would like a
little higher alcohol content? I know the higher alcohol can change the
taste if it is too high, but what if you are just going for a percentage
point or two?
Jim
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 14:37:29
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:23:12 -0400, <Jim@no.com > wrote:
> Is it recommended to add sugar before fermenting if you would like a
> little higher alcohol content? I know the higher alcohol can change the
> taste if it is too high, but what if you are just going for a percentage
> point or two?
IMO, it's easiest to factor it into the original recipe if you know ahead
of time that you want a higher ABV. However, you should be able to just
add more sugar at anytime, up to the point where you bottle/keg. Just make
sure that any additional sugar has been completely fermented before you
proceed with bottling. IOW, if you add more sugar to the secondary, give
it a couple days and make sure the gravity is stable before proceeding.
John.
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 07:36:17
From: MarkMc
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
I don't know what brewer's sweetner is, but it sounds like it is meant
to sweeten the beer, where the OP wanted to raise the alcohol slightly,
so it may be some kind of artificial sweetner or perhaps lactose?
There is quite a debate about sugar in beer - obviously using a high
percentage of sugar in a 'beer' probably means that it isn't beer any
more, but sugar is a useful adjunct in the same way as others such as
rice, if used in moderation.
Because common household sugar (sucrose) is 100% fermentable, no
sweetness will be added unless you pasteurise, but the resultant beer
will have more alcohol and possibly have a drier finish.
Certain beer styles, especially Belgian's use sugar to increase alcohol
to a higher level and to keep the beer balanced. Too much gravity from
malt can make a beer too heavy and 'cloying' and difficult to digest.
Judicious use of sugar can help to aleviate this.
I had the last runnings of a friend's porter last year. His porter was
about 8.5% ABV and was very good, but quite heavy. Mine, which I
boosted to about 1.055 with common household brown sugar from about
1.040 tasted much more balanced in my opinion. I was very sad indeed
when the last of it was consumed at Christmas.
Cheers,
Mark
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 07:43:15
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Jim wrote:
> Is it recommended to add sugar before fermenting if you would like a
> little higher alcohol content? I know the higher alcohol can change the
> taste if it is too high, but what if you are just going for a percentage
> point or two?
Personally, I would add more malt to the recipe, but if you are serious that
all you want to do is increase the alcohol content, then adding something
that is essentially 100% fermentable will achieve your goal.
Be aware that "sugar" us a very generic term. While you can generally
expect 100% fermentation, various kinds of sugars (sucrose, glucose,
fructose, etc.) actually *do* have slightly different fermentation
profiles. Ordinary table sugar, for example, has a tendancy to come off
"cidery" when used in quantity. I recommend using a brewers' sweetener,
readily obtainable at most LHBS.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 09:46:16
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> Be aware that "sugar" us a very generic term. While you can generally
> expect 100% fermentation, various kinds of sugars (sucrose, glucose,
> fructose, etc.) actually *do* have slightly different fermentation
> profiles. Ordinary table sugar, for example, has a tendancy to come off
> "cidery" when used in quantity. I recommend using a brewers' sweetener,
> readily obtainable at most LHBS.
Please define "quantity". I've used 23% in a tripel wiothout any off
flavors.
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 12:23:04
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> Please define "quantity". I've used 23% in a tripel wiothout any off
> flavors.
Please see my preceding post. I have never brewed a tripel; perhaps the
subtantial nature of that style allows it to not suffer from this
particular phenomenon.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 10:34:25
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
>
> Denny Conn wrote:
>
> > Please define "quantity". I've used 23% in a tripel wiothout any off
> > flavors.
>
> Please see my preceding post. I have never brewed a tripel; perhaps the
> subtantial nature of that style allows it to not suffer from this
> particular phenomenon.
I guess here I'd have to know what you mean by "substantial". Tipels a
very light bodied, as I'm sure you know, and almost always consisst of
nothing but pils malt and sugar.
And I swear, I'm not tryin' to hound you on this...just reach some sort
of understanding of the parameters you're using.
------------ >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 14:05:41
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> I guess here I'd have to know what you mean by "substantial". Tipels a
> very light bodied, as I'm sure you know, and almost always consisst of
> nothing but pils malt and sugar.
... that are characteristically complex with moderate to significant
spiciness, with high carbonation that helps bring out the many flavors and
increases the perception of a dry finish. That qualifies as substantial to
me, but we may be facing a question of semantics.
> And I swear, I'm not tryin' to hound you on this...just reach some sort
> of understanding of the parameters you're using.
I suspect the information pertaining to the parameters I used in my
experiment was posted asynchronously with your post. Perhaps after you see
that, you'll understand where I'm coming from.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 14:49:05
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:43:15 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Ordinary table sugar, for example, has a tendancy to come off "cidery"
> when used in quantity.
This is a really old myth, which is completely wrong. Table sugar will
not cause cidery flavors, regardless of what a lot of old brewing books
say. Those flavors are actually caused by old/stale LME.
The origin of the myth is probably that some author (Papazian?) did an
experiment with two batches of beer. Both were made with stale LME. In one
beer they added DME, in the other they added simple sugar. The one with
the sugar came out with cidery off flavors. The problem is that it wasn't
caused by the sugar. What happens is that the DME is better at covering up
flaws in the beer. Because the sugar ferments out 100%, it lets the flaws
in the LME come through. Older homebrew authors, who weren't scientists,
didn't understand that their experiment had too many variables to blame
the flavors on the sugar. Thus, we get stuck with this myth that has been
around for 20 years or so.
If you start with fresh LME, the only effect using sugar will have is to
increase the alcohol without adding any other flavor/body. I've seen
Listermann say that he's made a "beer" using 75% table sugar and very fresh
LME which had no cidery flavors at all.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 11:08:52
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> This is a really old myth, which is completely wrong. Table sugar will
> not cause cidery flavors, regardless of what a lot of old brewing books
> say. Those flavors are actually caused by old/stale LME.
> [...]
Then you go right ahead and use table sugar all you want. My statement is
based on personal experimentation.
Oh, and "brewers' sweetener" is nothing more than a generic term for such
things as brewery grade corn sweetener and rice syrup, most likely the same
stuff you've been using as priming sugar for bottling.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 16:47:30
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> This is a really old myth, which is completely wrong. Table sugar will
>> not cause cidery flavors, regardless of what a lot of old brewing books
>> say. Those flavors are actually caused by old/stale LME.
>> [...]
>Then you go right ahead and use table sugar all you want. My statement is
>based on personal experimentation.
In your personal experimentation, how much table sugar
do you find causes "cidery" flavors? Does using it for
priming do so? 10% of the fermentables? 20%?
I ask because I brew a fair amount of strong abbey-style
Belgian beers, and have used table sugar with them since
experimenting with "candi sugar," honey, corn sugar, etc.,
some years ago. I've also used table sugar in the occasional
British-style bitter or mild ale. I've never had a "cidery"
flavor in any of those beers. Many of my beers have been
evaluated in blind tastings by certified judges; cidery
flavors have never been described.
That said, I have occasion to taste a fair amount of beer
brewed by others, and have encountered cidery flavors in the
beer of some of those brewers. It is almost always a beginning
brewer who used name-brand canned extract with no added sugar.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 12:17:30
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Joel wrote:
> In your personal experimentation, how much table sugar
> do you find causes "cidery" flavors? Does using it for
> priming do so? 10% of the fermentables? 20%?
> [...]
It was a hefty dose. I would have to go digging through my notebooks, but
20% of the fermentables sounds close. (My memory wants me to say that it
was 25%, but I've *slept* a few times since that experiment was done.)
In any case, it was substantially more than you would use for priming. I
have no information or experimentation to indicate priming with table sugar
is a problem.
> That said, I have occasion to taste a fair amount of beer
> brewed by others, and have encountered cidery flavors in the
> beer of some of those brewers. It is almost always a beginning
> brewer who used name-brand canned extract with no added sugar.
If you are reading into my statement that table sugar is the *only* cause of
cidery off-flavors, or even a frequent cause of it, then please reread what
I said. Cidery off-flavors are normally due to other problems, such as
poor sanitation, but *can* be caused by use of a substantial amount of
table sugar.
The OP wanted to know how to raise the alcohol level without impacting the
flavor. I stand behind my recommendation to use brewery grade sweeteners
as opposed to table sugar.
BTW: I guess the BJCP does not recognize this as a myth, either. Here is
an excerpt from the official BJCP Study Guide:
An adjunct is defined as any unmalted source of fermentables in brewing.
These include corn and cane sugars, which provide a cheap source of sugar,
but are fully fermentable and tend to yield more alcohol and dry out the
beer. The enzymes excreted by the yeast to metabolize the sucrose in cane
sugar can also give a cidery flavor. Honey is a common adjunct in specialty
beers, and although it contributes some aromatics, the high sugar content
tends to make a beer thinner and more alcoholic than its all-malt
counterpart. To achieve a fuller palate, malto-dextrin syrup or powder may
be used, but the dextrin content may also be increased by adjusting the
malt bill or mashing procedure. Finally, adjuncts that add color, flavor
and fermentables include caramel, molasses, maple syrup and licorice.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 18:27:02
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>Joel wrote:
>> In your personal experimentation, how much table sugar
>> do you find causes "cidery" flavors? Does using it for
>> priming do so? 10% of the fermentables? 20%?
>> [...]
>It was a hefty dose. I would have to go digging through my notebooks, but
>20% of the fermentables sounds close. (My memory wants me to say that it
>was 25%, but I've *slept* a few times since that experiment was done.)
25% is a lot, but not substantially more than I've used
(roughly 20% by % fermentables).
>> That said, I have occasion to taste a fair amount of beer
>> brewed by others, and have encountered cidery flavors in the
>> beer of some of those brewers. It is almost always a beginning
>> brewer who used name-brand canned extract with no added sugar.
>
>If you are reading into my statement that table sugar is the *only* cause of
>cidery off-flavors, or even a frequent cause of it, then please reread what
>I said.
If you think that's what I said, then you reread what I
wrote. There, now we're even. ;-)
>Cidery off-flavors are normally due to other problems, such as
>poor sanitation, but *can* be caused by use of a substantial amount of
>table sugar.
>The OP wanted to know how to raise the alcohol level without impacting the
>flavor. I stand behind my recommendation to use brewery grade sweeteners
>as opposed to table sugar.
Obviously, my experience differs from yours, hence my
recommendation differs.
We also probably disagree about what a "brewery grade
sweetener" consists of. E.g., I've seen stacks of simple
table-quality sugar sacks in the Celis Brewery in Austin.
They brewed some great Belgian-style beers.
>BTW: I guess the BJCP does not recognize this as a myth, either. Here is
>an excerpt from the official BJCP Study Guide:
As a BJCP judge who's discussed such issues with other
judges (including some well-known brewing text authors),
I'd say that bit is horrendously outdated.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 13:52:43
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Joel wrote:
>>If you are reading into my statement that table sugar is the *only* cause
>>of cidery off-flavors, or even a frequent cause of it, then please reread
>>what I said.
> If you think that's what I said, then you reread what I
> wrote. There, now we're even. ;-)
TRUCE! :-)
> As a BJCP judge who's discussed such issues with other
> judges (including some well-known brewing text authors),
> I'd say that bit is horrendously outdated.
As a BJCP judge who's also discussed such issues with other judges, the jury
is still out on this question, as shown by the discussion Denny Conn
referenced.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 18:25:26
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:17:30 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>> That said, I have occasion to taste a fair amount of beer
>> brewed by others, and have encountered cidery flavors in the
>> beer of some of those brewers. It is almost always a beginning
>> brewer who used name-brand canned extract with no added sugar.
>
> If you are reading into my statement that table sugar is the *only* cause of
> cidery off-flavors, or even a frequent cause of it, then please reread what
> I said. Cidery off-flavors are normally due to other problems, such as
> poor sanitation, but *can* be caused by use of a substantial amount of
> table sugar.
No, they cannot be caused by table sugar. The table sugar will not hide
the cidery flavors if they are caused by one of the other sources though.
Many people are confused by the difference, so don't feel bad. It's a myth
which has been perpetuated for a long time in the hobby.
> The OP wanted to know how to raise the alcohol level without impacting the
> flavor. I stand behind my recommendation to use brewery grade sweeteners
> as opposed to table sugar.
It's the same thing, as far as brewing is concerned.
> BTW: I guess the BJCP does not recognize this as a myth, either. Here is
> an excerpt from the official BJCP Study Guide:
The BJCP is wrong in this case.
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 10:32:32
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> An adjunct is defined as any unmalted source of fermentables in brewing.
> These include corn and cane sugars, which provide a cheap source of sugar,
> but are fully fermentable and tend to yield more alcohol and dry out the
> beer. The enzymes excreted by the yeast to metabolize the sucrose in cane
> sugar can also give a cidery flavor. Honey is a common adjunct in specialty
> beers, and although it contributes some aromatics, the high sugar content
> tends to make a beer thinner and more alcoholic than its all-malt
> counterpart. To achieve a fuller palate, malto-dextrin syrup or powder may
> be used, but the dextrin content may also be increased by adjusting the
> malt bill or mashing procedure. Finally, adjuncts that add color, flavor
> and fermentables include caramel, molasses, maple syrup and licorice.
Larry, I think you'll be interested in this discussion from the BJCP
forum....
http://www.bjcp.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46
Take note of the statement from BJCP pres. Gordaon Strong "The Study
Guide is out of date and will be revised after the exam revision has
been completed." Or from Dave Sapsis, who worte that portion of the
study guide..."this is -- in the immortal words of Click --
Booooohoooohoooooohooh-gus.".
--------------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 13:21:16
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> Larry, I think you'll be interested in this discussion from the BJCP
> forum....
> http://www.bjcp.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46
Interesting discussion! Thanks, Denny!
The thing that struck me as I read through it was a complete lack of a
definition of what "cidery" actually meant. It strikes me that this is
extremely important, and at least one of the contributors made that point.
The question may well be whether a significant amount of cane sugar has any
flavoring factor, rather than whether it is a "cidery" flavor.
Maybe I'll take the trouble to repeat that experiment to see if I achieve
the same results. [But not likely.] I found my notes; here are the
particulars: Two 5 gallon batches made back-to-back (same day), each using
an identical 3.75# can of malt extract and 1.25# of sugar. [That works out
to 25% sugar, BTW, so maybe I have to stop using sleep as a memory excuse.
<sigh >] One batch used corn sweetener; the other used table (cane) sugar.
Both batches used the same hop schedule, the same yeast, fermented for the
same time under the same conditions, bottled simultaneously, conditioned
identically, and then sampled (tested) at the same time. Other than the
sugar used, these beers were as close to being identical as my limited
abilities could physically make them.
I wish I had used a 3-way blind test, but unfortunately, I had never heard
of it at the time. In lieu of that, I used my own taste buds and those of
a couple of friends. There was a clear and present difference between the
two brews, and I definitely preferred the one made with corn sweetener. I
will not go so far as to say the one made with cane sugar was "cidery" at
this time, primarily because I cannot define what that means. You see,
there is no such word in my English dictionary! And the definition of
"cider" leaves something to be desired.
Anecdotal evidence? Perhaps. Until presented with evidence to the
contrary, however, I will stick to my recommendation. YMMV. Like most
things in life, there are absolutely *no* absolutes. <ROFL >
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 18:21:05
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:08:52 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> This is a really old myth, which is completely wrong. Table sugar will
>> not cause cidery flavors, regardless of what a lot of old brewing books
>> say. Those flavors are actually caused by old/stale LME.
>> [...]
>
> Then you go right ahead and use table sugar all you want. My statement is
> based on personal experimentation.
You must have been noticing something else going on in your experiment
than just the sugar.
> Oh, and "brewers' sweetener" is nothing more than a generic term for such
> things as brewery grade corn sweetener and rice syrup, most likely the same
> stuff you've been using as priming sugar for bottling.
AKA corn sugar, which is essentially the same thing as cane sugar or beet
sugar, both of which can fall under the general term "table sugar". All
of them are 100% fermentable, which means that the only thing left over
is CO2 and alcohol. There is nothing there which can cause any flavors.
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 13:48:31
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> You must have been noticing something else going on in your experiment
> than just the sugar.
The cry of pseudo-scientists world wide. If you do not like the results,
attack the experiment.
> AKA corn sugar, which is essentially the same thing as cane sugar or beet
> sugar, both of which can fall under the general term "table sugar".
This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
They are *very* different!
"Sucrose proper is a dextrorotatory carbohydrate, C12H22O11. It does not
reduce Fehling's solution, and though not directly fermentable, yet on
standing with yeast it is changed by the diastase present to invert sugar
(dextrose and levulose), which then breaks down to alcohol and carbon
dioxide. It is also decomposed to invert sugar by heating with acids,
whence it is also called a disaccharate. Sucrose possesses at once the
properties of an alcohol and a ketone, and also forms compounds (called
sucrates) analogous to salts."
"Glucose [corn syrup] (C6H12O6), is made from cornstarch, a natural product
with minerals and vitamins. But the original starch is converted, by means
of sulphuric or hydrochloric acid, into a soluble carbohydrate that
dissolves readily in solids or liquids. The strong acid destroys all the
nutritional values (phospholipids, phytates of calcium and magnesium, and
fractions of the vitamin B and E complexes) contained in the original
starch. Arsenic residue, present in either acid, may contaminate to some
degree the resulting product, which at this stage is ill smelling and dark.
These objectionable qualities are removed by filtration and deodorization.
The end product, glucose (or dextrose, "corn syrup," or "corn sugar"), is
clear, odorless, and nearly tasteless."
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 19:19:09
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:48:31 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>> AKA corn sugar, which is essentially the same thing as cane sugar or beet
>> sugar, both of which can fall under the general term "table sugar".
>
> This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
> They are *very* different!
"essentially" means that they are not necessarily identical, but for the
context of brewing they give the same results.
John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 19:35:08
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:48:31 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com> wrote:
>>> AKA corn sugar, which is essentially the same thing as cane sugar or beet
>>> sugar, both of which can fall under the general term "table sugar".
>>
>> This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
>> They are *very* different!
>
>"essentially" means that they are not necessarily identical, but for the
>context of brewing they give the same results.
No, they don't. Corn sugar ferments more readily (quickly)
than table sugar, which is one reason many people prefer it for
priming. Corn sugar also has less fermentables by weight and
volume than table sugar, so the amount used should differ in
order to get the same result.
However, flavorwise I've never noticed a difference in my
brewing.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 20:12:28
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:35:08 +0000 (UTC), <plutchak@see.headers > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:48:31 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com> wrote:
>>>> AKA corn sugar, which is essentially the same thing as cane sugar or beet
>>>> sugar, both of which can fall under the general term "table sugar".
>>>
>>> This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
>>> They are *very* different!
>>
>>"essentially" means that they are not necessarily identical, but for the
>>context of brewing they give the same results.
>
> No, they don't.
I think we should be able to agree that glucose is a simple sugar and
sucrose is a chain made up of two simple sugars.
> Corn sugar ferments more readily (quickly)
> than table sugar, which is one reason many people prefer it for
> priming.
Right, because the yeast first has to break down the cane sugar (aka sucrose)
into it's components before it can ferment it. Once it breaks it down though,
it's just as if you had started out with two simple sugars instead of one
disaccharide chain.
> Corn sugar also has less fermentables by weight and
> volume than table sugar, so the amount used should differ in
> order to get the same result.
Certainly. You can't substitute sucrose for glucose 1:1, but if you take
the difference into account in your substitution rate they give the same
results. Doing it by weight should probably get you very close. Somebody
posted the ratio for doing it by volume a while ago, although volume
measurements don't tend to be as accurate.
> However, flavorwise I've never noticed a difference in my
> brewing.
That's what I meant by "they give the same results".
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 12:13:48
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
> They are *very* different!
Admittedly so...but the REAL question is "does the difference in
chemistry make a difference in taste?".
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 00:12:24
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:13:48 -0700, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> Larry Bristol wrote:
>
>> This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
>> They are *very* different!
>
> Admittedly so...but the REAL question is "does the difference in
> chemistry make a difference in taste?".
BTW, the only possible difference I'm aware of is the invertase enzyme
that the yeast uses to break sucrose down. After that point, everything
else should be identical. I've seen some people speculating that the
invertase is responsible for the cidery flavors, but I've never seen
any proof along those lines. Personally, I think they started with the
assumption that there is a difference, and the invertase is the only
possible explanation (that I'm aware of), so they extend the assumption
that it must be responsible. If someone can supply sources showing that
the invertase has any effect on flavor, I would love to see it.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 09:01:51
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> BTW, the only possible difference I'm aware of is the invertase enzyme
> that the yeast uses to break sucrose down. After that point, everything
> else should be identical. I've seen some people speculating that the
> invertase is responsible for the cidery flavors, but I've never seen
> any proof along those lines. Personally, I think they started with the
> assumption that there is a difference, and the invertase is the only
> possible explanation (that I'm aware of), so they extend the assumption
> that it must be responsible. If someone can supply sources showing that
> the invertase has any effect on flavor, I would love to see it.
I read something to that effect somewhere, probably in that BJCP discussion.
I also cannot see how invertase could account for it, but my orgasmic
chemistry (as it is known to those who "get off" to that sort of thing) is
not that strong.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 14:41:34
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:01:51 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> BTW, the only possible difference I'm aware of is the invertase enzyme
>> that the yeast uses to break sucrose down. After that point, everything
>> else should be identical. I've seen some people speculating that the
>> invertase is responsible for the cidery flavors, but I've never seen
>> any proof along those lines. Personally, I think they started with the
>> assumption that there is a difference, and the invertase is the only
>> possible explanation (that I'm aware of), so they extend the assumption
>> that it must be responsible. If someone can supply sources showing that
>> the invertase has any effect on flavor, I would love to see it.
>
> I read something to that effect somewhere, probably in that BJCP discussion.
> I also cannot see how invertase could account for it, but my orgasmic
> chemistry (as it is known to those who "get off" to that sort of thing) is
> not that strong.
This quote (written by the author of that section of the style guide)?
If indeed the offending statement in the SG is attributable to me, and
references enzymes secreted by yeast, this is -- in the immortal words of
Click -- Booooohoooohoooooohooh-gus. The only specific enzyme that yeast
would produce specific to sugar would be invertase, and only then in the case
of sucrose/fructose. As far as I know, there is no reputable inference
between invertase and cidery flavors. Hence if it is in there it is a momily
passsed on through the homebrwing literature (there are lots of those
unfortuantely).
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 10:24:44
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> This quote (written by the author of that section of the style guide)?
>
> If indeed the offending statement in the SG is attributable to me, and
> references enzymes secreted by yeast, this is -- in the immortal words of
> Click -- Booooohoooohoooooohooh-gus. The only specific enzyme that yeast
> would produce specific to sugar would be invertase, and only then in the
> case of sucrose/fructose. As far as I know, there is no reputable
> inference between invertase and cidery flavors. Hence if it is in there it
> is a momily passsed on through the homebrwing literature (there are lots
> of those unfortuantely).
Actually, I was thinking of something else, something that mentioned Charlie
Papazian by name. What's your point?
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 16:52:50
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:24:44 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking of something else, something that mentioned Charlie
> Papazian by name.
I don't recall if Papazian mentioned invertase specifically, but he's most
likely the original source of the "table sugar causes cidery flavors" myth.
John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 14:53:48
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> Admittedly so...but the REAL question is "does the difference in
> chemistry make a difference in taste?".
Exactly. I have evidence to support the idea that it does.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 12:58:14
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
>
> Denny Conn wrote:
>
> > Admittedly so...but the REAL question is "does the difference in
> > chemistry make a difference in taste?".
>
> Exactly. I have evidence to support the idea that it does.
And I have evidence (at least enough to satisy myself) that it doesn't.
I've been making the same tripel recipe for a while now, and I wanted to
try it both with cane sugar and corn sugar to see if there was a
difference. At this point, in 2 comparisons (4 batches, 2 each way) I
honestly have to say I can't tell a difference. The recipes were 78%
pils malt, 22% sugar, noble hops to about 30-33 IBU, no spices of any
sort, and WY3787. Fermented at 64F, rising throughout fermentation to
68F.
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 15:21:02
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> And I have evidence (at least enough to satisy myself) that it doesn't.
My experiment did not involve making a tripel. It involved making a very
simple ale so that the effect of the sugar, if any, would be readily
apparent. It was. To be precise, there was a noticeable difference
between the beer with cane sugar and the one with corn sweetener.
Your experimental results seemingly dispute my experimental results. I
don't find that surprising or disturbing in the least. We brewed
completely different styles of beer where the expected flavors are
substantially different. Tripels are *traditionally* brewed with a high
sugar content. Could it be as simple as the notion that any flavoring that
might result from this sugar is *expected* in a tripel? Do you suppose
there are any flavors found in a traditional tripel that would be
completely inappropriate if found in a light ale such as the one I brewed?
Bottom line: If you (or anyone) is obtaining satisfactory results brewing
with cane sugar, then by all means, help yourself and continue the
practice. For my beers, I will continue *not* using cane sugar. Unless, I
should decide to brew a tripel! In that case, based on this discussion, I
will definitely reconsider the idea!
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 20:45:35
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:21:02 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Denny Conn wrote:
>
>> And I have evidence (at least enough to satisy myself) that it doesn't.
>
> My experiment did not involve making a tripel. It involved making a very
> simple ale so that the effect of the sugar, if any, would be readily
> apparent. It was. To be precise, there was a noticeable difference
Can you define "noticeable difference"? Are you talking about cidery
flavors, or something else?
> between the beer with cane sugar and the one with corn sweetener.
Your definition of "corn sweetner" isn't "corn syrup" by any chance? Most
corn syrup products contain other flavorings besides just glucose. So if
that's the case, then I would certainly expect there to be a difference
between cane sugar and corn syrup.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 08:43:44
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Can you define "noticeable difference"? Are you talking about cidery
> flavors, or something else?
"Noticeable difference" is essentially what it says. I could detect a
different flavor profile between the two beers.
Now at that time, I *thought* "cidery" probably because that was what I had
been *told* to expect. But this is repeating some stuff I mentioned in a
previous message. In retrospect, especially since "cidery" is so poorly
defined, I would rather not use that word. Let me say simply that they
were different, and I preferred the flavor from the beer using corn
sweetener.
> Your definition of "corn sweetner" isn't "corn syrup" by any chance? Most
> corn syrup products contain other flavorings besides just glucose. So if
> that's the case, then I would certainly expect there to be a difference
> between cane sugar and corn syrup.
[Oh God, here comes that damn dictionary again! <grin >]
Cane sugar: sugar made from the sugar cane; sucrose, or an isomeric
sugar. See Sucrose.
Starch sugar: a variety of dextrose made by the action of heat and
acids on starch from corn, potatoes, etc.; -- called also potato sugar,
corn sugar, and, inaccurately, invert sugar. See Dextrose, and Glucose.
But your statement goes along with my (non-scientific) explanation for *why*
there is a difference between them. If the table sugar one buys in the
grocery store was 100% pure sucrose, and corn sweetener was 100% pure
dextrose, then I cannot see how it could possibly make a difference!
That's what prompted my experiment.
Here's why. If you hydrolyze sucrose:
(sucrose) C12H22O11 + H2O - > (2)C6H12O6 (dextrose)
you get dextrose. [What you actually get is commonly called "invert sugar",
consisting of one dextrose and one levulose. They are chemically
identical, but physically different as shown by how levulose rotates the
plane of polarization of light to the left. But no one really cares about
this nonsense, right?]
But cane sugar is *not* 100% pure sucrose, and corn sweeteners are not 100%
dextrose. I figure the impurities within them account for the flavor
differences. Because they are refined/manufactured in completely different
ways from different raw materials, it is not much of a leap to assume that
the impurities in cane sugar are different from those in corn sweetener.
And the upshot is that there is a detectable flavor difference, especially
evident in a fairly low gravity beer that used a lot of sugar, such as the
one I described in my experiment.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 14:36:02
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:43:44 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>> Your definition of "corn sweetner" isn't "corn syrup" by any chance? Most
>> corn syrup products contain other flavorings besides just glucose. So if
>> that's the case, then I would certainly expect there to be a difference
>> between cane sugar and corn syrup.
>
> [Oh God, here comes that damn dictionary again! <grin>]
> Cane sugar: sugar made from the sugar cane; sucrose, or an isomeric
> sugar. See Sucrose.
> Starch sugar: a variety of dextrose made by the action of heat and
> acids on starch from corn, potatoes, etc.; -- called also potato sugar,
> corn sugar, and, inaccurately, invert sugar. See Dextrose, and Glucose.
That's not what I meant. The common usage of "cane sugar" in homebrewing
implies a powdered form of sucrose. The term "corn sweetner" is what
I am trying to understand. It's not one I've heard often, so what exactly
is it that you used? Was it powdered glucose? If that's the case,
the common term for that is "corn sugar". There is another product though
called "corn syrup", which in addition to having other things added to it
besides glucose is also not 1:1 equivalent with dry can sugar. Corn syrup
will have a percentage of water. So if two beers were made, one with dry
cane sugar and the other with an equal weight of corn syrup, it would make
sense that the cane sugar beer has a higher alcohol content and a
drier/thinner body.
I'm just trying to understand the experiment that you performed. I'm not
familiar with exactly what "corn sweetner" is. You're the only person
I remember hearing the term from.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 10:21:44
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> That's not what I meant. The common usage of "cane sugar" in homebrewing
> implies a powdered form of sucrose. The term "corn sweetner" is what
> I am trying to understand. It's not one I've heard often, so what exactly
> is it that you used? Was it powdered glucose? If that's the case,
> the common term for that is "corn sugar". There is another product though
> called "corn syrup", which in addition to having other things added to it
> besides glucose is also not 1:1 equivalent with dry can sugar. Corn syrup
> will have a percentage of water. So if two beers were made, one with dry
> cane sugar and the other with an equal weight of corn syrup, it would make
> sense that the cane sugar beer has a higher alcohol content and a
> drier/thinner body.
"Corn sweetener" is a very common term used around these parts. It refers
to both the dry form that you seem to refer to as "corn sugar" as well as a
liquid form. The dry form, powdered dextrose, was used in this experiment.
I am fully aware that equal weights of syrup and dry sugar are not
equivalent. Occam's razor.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 13:36:23
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> My experiment did not involve making a tripel. It involved making a very
> simple ale so that the effect of the sugar, if any, would be readily
> apparent. It was. To be precise, there was a noticeable difference
> between the beer with cane sugar and the one with corn sweetener.
>
> Your experimental results seemingly dispute my experimental results. I
> don't find that surprising or disturbing in the least. We brewed
> completely different styles of beer where the expected flavors are
> substantially different. Tripels are *traditionally* brewed with a high
> sugar content. Could it be as simple as the notion that any flavoring that
> might result from this sugar is *expected* in a tripel? Do you suppose
> there are any flavors found in a traditional tripel that would be
> completely inappropriate if found in a light ale such as the one I brewed?
>
> Bottom line: If you (or anyone) is obtaining satisfactory results brewing
> with cane sugar, then by all means, help yourself and continue the
> practice. For my beers, I will continue *not* using cane sugar. Unless, I
> should decide to brew a tripel! In that case, based on this discussion, I
> will definitely reconsider the idea!
And I'm certainly NOT trying to tell you that you didn't taste something
that you did! IIRC, you used liquid extract when you did this
comparison? That puts it in the state described where the sugar doesn't
cover the stale extract taste. Have you tried the same experiment with
an all grain beer?
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 08:13:44
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> And I'm certainly NOT trying to tell you that you didn't taste something
> that you did! IIRC, you used liquid extract when you did this
> comparison? That puts it in the state described where the sugar doesn't
> cover the stale extract taste. Have you tried the same experiment with
> an all grain beer?
No. If I were to repeat this experiment today, that's what I would do.
Just a reminder: Both batches used the *same* extract, and I even took
pains to make sure they came from the same manufacturer's batch. If they
were stale, they were *both* stale.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 14:27:27
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:13:44 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Denny Conn wrote:
>
>> And I'm certainly NOT trying to tell you that you didn't taste something
>> that you did! IIRC, you used liquid extract when you did this
>> comparison? That puts it in the state described where the sugar doesn't
>> cover the stale extract taste. Have you tried the same experiment with
>> an all grain beer?
>
> No. If I were to repeat this experiment today, that's what I would do.
>
> Just a reminder: Both batches used the *same* extract, and I even took
> pains to make sure they came from the same manufacturer's batch. If they
> were stale, they were *both* stale.
Lots of things could have happened to those cans of extract before you
ever got them. I'm not saying that it did, but it's certainly possible.
What if they were delivered to your LHBS in different shipments and one
of them sat in a 100F+ UPS truck for a week. IMO, it's possible
for two cans of extract from the same manufacturer to exhibit different
off flavors if the storage/handling conditions are complete unknowns.
There are probably tons of variables in a "stove top" experiment like this
that go unaccounted for. Many homebrewers will make even the identical
recipe and have the results come out differently. A home kitchen does not
usually make a good environment for serious scientific experiments.
Like Denny, I have no doubt that you tasted a difference in the beers. But
there are many things that could have caused it. You might have been able
to repeat the same experiment but use corn sugar in both, and still been
able to taste a difference.
If you can offer any explanation for why there would be a difference, I'd
like to hear it.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 10:12:29
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Lots of things could have happened to those cans of extract before you
> ever got them. I'm not saying that it did, but it's certainly possible.
John, I appreciate your comments, but I think it is time to put a stop to
this madness. Have ever heard of a scientific principle known as Occam's
Razor? It essentially suggests that it is best to accept the simplest
explanation for an observed phenomenom rather than to postulate other, more
complicated explanations.
I have told you that the two cans of extract can from the same manufaturer's
batch. Yes, it is theoretically possible that one of them may have been
exposed to a significant quantity of X-rays, or God only knows what, before
I bought them. But attempting to explain the observed results in this
manner is preposterous. You might as well suggest that the flavor
differences I observed were influenced by witches (which happens to be my
favorite explanation for a lot of things).
Of course my experiment was not conducted in a laboratory under extremely
rigorous conditions. But I have told you what I did and the strides I took
to make sure that the only variable was the type of sugar used in the
batches. I understand that you do not like the results. It apparently
conflicts with what you would like to believe. As I said earlier, I set
out to prove the very opposite of what I observed! I'm sorry, but I cannot
help that. Frankly, I find your continued insistence that the experiment
is somehow flawed to be insulting.
> If you can offer any explanation for why there would be a difference, I'd
> like to hear it.
I have, but perhaps you have not yet read that.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 15:58:31
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:12:29 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> Lots of things could have happened to those cans of extract before you
>> ever got them. I'm not saying that it did, but it's certainly possible.
>
> John, I appreciate your comments, but I think it is time to put a stop to
> this madness.
I thought you were the one that asked for specific details on why you're
experiment is not convincing rather than just general hand waving.
> Have ever heard of a scientific principle known as Occam's
> Razor? It essentially suggests that it is best to accept the simplest
> explanation for an observed phenomenom rather than to postulate other, more
> complicated explanations.
Given the chemistry involved and that sucrose is just a glucose and fructose
bonded together... the simplest explanation is that there is no basis for
the "phenomenom". You seem to be defending it with a lot of speculation, and
then try to turn around and say that my speculations as to why your
experiment was flawed is not valid. Nice double standard.
> I have told you that the two cans of extract can from the same manufaturer's
> batch. Yes, it is theoretically possible that one of them may have been
> exposed to a significant quantity of X-rays, or God only knows what, before
> I bought them. But attempting to explain the observed results in this
> manner is preposterous. You might as well suggest that the flavor
> differences I observed were influenced by witches (which happens to be my
> favorite explanation for a lot of things).
Now you're just being silly. Nobody said anything about xrays and
witches, but if it serves your purpose to try and belittle the arguments
of others then go ahead. BTW, shipping/handling damages to brewing
ingredients happen all the time. It's certainly not a stretch to suggest
that it was possible in this case. I'm not saying how likely it was, but
if you want to use your experiment to counter lots of other experiments
by reputable sources that came up with the opposite results, you have to
expect a little scrutiny.
> Of course my experiment was not conducted in a laboratory under extremely
> rigorous conditions. But I have told you what I did and the strides I took
> to make sure that the only variable was the type of sugar used in the
> batches. I understand that you do not like the results.
It has nothing to do with not liking the results, it has to do with
questioning the validity of your conclusions. The "results" were that your
two batches tasted different. I'm not disputing that. However, you are
jumping to the conclusion that it was the sugar which was responsible, with
no real explanation that backs it up.
I have no personal feelings either way for whether or not sucrose causes off
flavors. It's not like I hang out at the local sucrose bar and they're all
personal friends of mine. If it's true that sucrose really does cause
"cidery" flavors, then great. Knowing that will improve my beer. However, I
see no real evidence that suggests it to be true and a lot of information that
says it's a myth that has been perpetuated and then "proven" with nothing
more than speculation.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 11:27:16
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> I thought you were the one that asked for specific details on why you're
> experiment is not convincing rather than just general hand waving.
No, as a matter of fact, I am not. I am totally unconcerned whether you are
convinced or not. I would simply appreciate that you stop pronouncing the
results of my experiment to be invalid with a "wave of your hand" as if you
are the all-knowing guru.
If you are seriously willing to discuss this openly and rationally, than so
am I. Otherwise, I would just as soon drop it. You are not going to
change the facts as I see them (especially without presenting facts of your
own). And unfortunately, I'm sorry to say it appears to me that mere facts
are not sufficient to convince you when you have already made up your mind.
> Given the chemistry involved and that sucrose is just a glucose and
> fructose bonded together... the simplest explanation is that there is no
> basis for the "phenomenom". You seem to be defending it with a lot of
> speculation, and then try to turn around and say that my speculations as
> to why your experiment was flawed is not valid. Nice double standard.
Nice trick, but that is not the way things work. I have presented evidence
that the phenomenon exists. The speculation I have done is merely an
attempt to explain *why* there is a difference. You, OTOH, wish to
speculate as to whether there really *is* a difference. I'm not playing
that game.
> Now you're just being silly. Nobody said anything about xrays and
> witches, but if it serves your purpose to try and belittle the arguments
> of others then go ahead.
These are no sillier than your speculations about what might have caused the
differences you do not want to accept.
> It has nothing to do with not liking the results, it has to do with
> questioning the validity of your conclusions. The "results" were that
> your two batches tasted different. I'm not disputing that. However, you
> are jumping to the conclusion that it was the sugar which was responsible,
> with no real explanation that backs it up.
It is a completely rational and valid conclusion that presupposes only that
no other factors are involved. It is a lot more rational to make that
assumption than to assume some factor is involved, without being able to
identify what it might be other than wild speculation about how the two
cans of malt extract might have been subjected to different conditions.
The plain simple truth, John, is that you are *choosing* to believe what
you want to believe, disregarding all evidence to the contrary.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 17:26:55
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:27:16 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Nice trick, but that is not the way things work. I have presented evidence
> that the phenomenon exists.
The only phenomenon you provided evidence for was that your two beers
tasted different. If you have any evidence that proves it was the sugar
that was responsible, you have yet to mention it.
> The speculation I have done is merely an attempt to explain *why* there is
> a difference.
More specifically, you're speculating as to what *caused* the difference
(by either ignoring or not understanding a lot of variables that you can't
control). Then you are further speculating as to *why* your first speculation
is true. As you mentioned in another post, your conclusions are based on
presuposing that the only difference in the beers was the type of sugar used.
IMO, that's a *huge* presuposition for a homebrewer.
> You, OTOH, wish to speculate as to whether there really *is* a difference.
I never said there wasn't a difference in your beers. I'm just questioning
whether it's due to what you think it is.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 12:49:01
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> I never said there wasn't a difference in your beers. I'm just
> questioning whether it's due to what you think it is.
Question and speculate all you want. I will no longer be responding to
messages from you on this topic.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 15:30:36
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > writes:
> Larry Bristol wrote:
>
> > This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
> > They are *very* different!
>
> Admittedly so...but the REAL question is "does the difference in
> chemistry make a difference in taste?".
>
So how about making two batches, each with ONLY the one kind of sugar?
And would the choice of yeast make a difference in the potential for
"cidery" tastes?
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 14:59:01
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Don Levey wrote:
> So how about making two batches, each with ONLY the one kind of sugar?
Been there... done that... bought the teeshirt. Please see my prior post
about an experiment exactly like this.
> And would the choice of yeast make a difference in the potential for
> "cidery" tastes?
I would certainly think so.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 20:41:09
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:59:01 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>> And would the choice of yeast make a difference in the potential for
>> "cidery" tastes?
>
> I would certainly think so.
What makes you think that?
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 08:10:37
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>> And would the choice of yeast make a difference in the potential for
>>> "cidery" tastes?
>> I would certainly think so.
>
> What makes you think that?
Good grief! What a question!
Because yeast is a primary contributor for flavors in beer, and different
strains act very differently depending on nutritional factors. Sugar is a
major part of that nutrition.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 14:14:33
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:10:37 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Because yeast is a primary contributor for flavors in beer, and different
> strains act very differently depending on nutritional factors. Sugar is a
> major part of that nutrition.
Obviously different strains of yeast will give their own flavor profiles
during fermentation. However, that has nothing to do with the idea that
sucrose is responsible for any flavor. Have you ever seen any information
that would lead you to believe that yeast changes it's behavior with
regards to breaking sucrose down into the smaller sugars based on the
strain? I don't believe that the strain makes any difference. If you
know otherwise, please let me know.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 09:53:32
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Obviously different strains of yeast will give their own flavor profiles
> during fermentation. However, that has nothing to do with the idea that
> sucrose is responsible for any flavor. Have you ever seen any information
> that would lead you to believe that yeast changes it's behavior with
> regards to breaking sucrose down into the smaller sugars based on the
> strain? I don't believe that the strain makes any difference. If you
> know otherwise, please let me know.
No, nothing I know of. As you know, yeast has to act a little differently
to metabolize sucrose, but AFAIK, all strains do so in a similar manner.
I presume this goes back to Don Levy's question about different yeast
strains having a different potential for showing these "cidery" [sic]
tastes. My answer is based on this "impurities" theory that I explained
earlier, rather than the way they might metabolize sucrose itself.
Different yeast strains might easily react differently to such impurities.
This is, of course, all conjecture, and not related to my now famous(?)
experiment in any way.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 15:39:59
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:53:32 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> I presume this goes back to Don Levy's question about different yeast
> strains having a different potential for showing these "cidery" [sic]
> tastes.
That may be true, if we are assuming that the flavors exist in the first
place.
> My answer is based on this "impurities" theory that I explained
> earlier, rather than the way they might metabolize sucrose itself.
Do you have any numbers on the purity of refined sugar? IIRC, if there are
any impurities they're going to be things like left over plant material
(stalks, dirt, etc) from the sugar cane or beets. Most of the information
I've seen suggests that refining removes these, and it is pure sugar.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 11:05:26
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Do you have any numbers on the purity of refined sugar? IIRC, if there
> are any impurities they're going to be things like left over plant
> material (stalks, dirt, etc) from the sugar cane or beets. Most of the
> information I've seen suggests that refining removes these, and it is pure
> sugar.
I cannot even imagine a process that would leave 100% sucrose behind! That
would be terribly inefficient for food-grade purposes.
I'm not talking about gross impurities like dirt and plant stems, but
chemical impurities. Perhaps other, more complex sugars are left behind.
Perhaps there are traces of the chemicals used in the refining process.
But the basic answer is, I do not know what they might be. I thought about
simply reading the list of ingredients on a bag of sugar, but I suspect it
would say little more than "x% sucrose with y% inert ingredients".
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 11:20:38
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > writes:
>
> I presume this goes back to Don Levy's question about different yeast
> strains having a different potential for showing these "cidery" [sic]
> tastes. My answer is based on this "impurities" theory that I explained
> earlier, rather than the way they might metabolize sucrose itself.
> Different yeast strains might easily react differently to such impurities.
> This is, of course, all conjecture, and not related to my now famous(?)
> experiment in any way.
>
That was the intent behind the question - that the characteristics of
the particular strain of yeast might react to impurities in the sugar
and/or the slight enzymatic differences present.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 16:35:55
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > writes:
> Don Levey wrote:
>
> > So how about making two batches, each with ONLY the one kind of sugar?
>
> Been there... done that... bought the teeshirt. Please see my prior post
> about an experiment exactly like this.
>
No, I mean *only* that sugar. And water, and yeast. No malt.
> > And would the choice of yeast make a difference in the potential for
> > "cidery" tastes?
>
> I would certainly think so.
>
So perhaps this is one possibility for the differences you're seeing
and others are not...
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 20:40:41
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On 01 Aug 2006 16:35:55 -0400, <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote:
> Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com> writes:
>
>> Don Levey wrote:
>>
>> > So how about making two batches, each with ONLY the one kind of sugar?
>>
>> Been there... done that... bought the teeshirt. Please see my prior post
>> about an experiment exactly like this.
>>
> No, I mean *only* that sugar. And water, and yeast. No malt.
MDixon has done a 100% table sugar fermentation (water, sugar and yeast) with
no cidery flavors.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 08:03:16
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Don Levey wrote:
> No, I mean *only* that sugar. And water, and yeast. No malt.
Oh. I'm with you now. Maybe it would be worth something. My interest in
the subject was to see if there was a detectable difference between cane
sugar and corn sugar *in beer*. If you remove the malt and hops, it's not
beer anymore.
> So perhaps this is one possibility for the differences you're seeing
> and others are not...
I don't really think so. Yeast will obviously play a factor, but in my
experiment, the yeast used in both batches was identical.
This thread got started because of a question about using sugar to raise the
amount of alcohol in a finished beer, and my recommendation to avoid using
cane sugar in quantities (to which I will add unless you have a reason to
do so). I stand behind that recommendation. My experiment convinced me
that there is a definite difference between cane sugar and corn sugar.
Even so, there are appropriate uses of cane sugar. Some beer styles use it
traditionally. I even have a personal recipe to clone Theakston Old
Peculier that uses turbinado sugar (not completely refined cane sugar).
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 10:55:25
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > writes:
> Don Levey wrote:
>
> > No, I mean *only* that sugar. And water, and yeast. No malt.
>
> Oh. I'm with you now. Maybe it would be worth something. My interest in
> the subject was to see if there was a detectable difference between cane
> sugar and corn sugar *in beer*. If you remove the malt and hops, it's not
> beer anymore.
>
True, and the malt and hops may add chemicals necessary to develop
that off-taste. At least doing this as a control, though, would
eliminate or implicate the sugar itself.
By the way, can you give more details as to the corn sugar
you were using? I've seen various terms used (corn sugar, corn
sweetener, corn syrup, etc) and I may end up doing the side-by-side
and want to use what you used.
> > So perhaps this is one possibility for the differences you're seeing
> > and others are not...
>
> I don't really think so. Yeast will obviously play a factor, but in my
> experiment, the yeast used in both batches was identical.
>
Hmm, that could control for differences, but...
Someone mentioned an enzyme which may be present in one but not
the other. If the yeast interacts with the enzyme...
If/when I do this I'll try to choose a neutral yeast if possible.
> This thread got started because of a question about using sugar to raise the
> amount of alcohol in a finished beer, and my recommendation to avoid using
> cane sugar in quantities (to which I will add unless you have a reason to
> do so). I stand behind that recommendation. My experiment convinced me
> that there is a definite difference between cane sugar and corn sugar.
> Even so, there are appropriate uses of cane sugar. Some beer styles use it
> traditionally. I even have a personal recipe to clone Theakston Old
> Peculier that uses turbinado sugar (not completely refined cane sugar).
>
Makes sense to me, and I'm not trying to argue. I've been told, by the
way, that most of the white table sugar in the US is not cane sugar
but extracted from sugar beets. I haven't verified the truth in that.
If the sugar is refined enough, it should be identical sucrose.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 10:56:32
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Don Levey wrote:
> True, and the malt and hops may add chemicals necessary to develop
> that off-taste. At least doing this as a control, though, would
> eliminate or implicate the sugar itself.
To me, that's not important. If it should so happen that it is technically
caused by some interaction betwen malt, hops, and cane sugar, and one of
them has to go, then my personal choice is clear.
> By the way, can you give more details as to the corn sugar
> you were using? I've seen various terms used (corn sugar, corn
> sweetener, corn syrup, etc) and I may end up doing the side-by-side
> and want to use what you used.
Corn sweetener is merely a generic term. Specifically, I used dry corn
sugar (dextrose).
> Hmm, that could control for differences, but...
> Someone mentioned an enzyme which may be present in one but not
> the other. If the yeast interacts with the enzyme...
> If/when I do this I'll try to choose a neutral yeast if possible.
Yeast uses the enzyme intervase to break down sucrose into dextrose and
levulose. Without that enzyme, it could not metabolize sucrose at all.
One of the (billions of) things I do not know is whether the enzyme is
always present, or if the yeast produces it only when necessary to break
down the sucrose.
> Makes sense to me, and I'm not trying to argue. I've been told, by the
> way, that most of the white table sugar in the US is not cane sugar
> but extracted from sugar beets. I haven't verified the truth in that.
> If the sugar is refined enough, it should be identical sucrose.
That's also my understanding. If there is difference, I would assume it
would be only in the type if impurities that might be handing around.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 16:57:25
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On 02 Aug 2006 10:55:25 -0400, <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote:
> Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com> writes:
>
>> Don Levey wrote:
>>
>> > No, I mean *only* that sugar. And water, and yeast. No malt.
>>
>> Oh. I'm with you now. Maybe it would be worth something. My interest in
>> the subject was to see if there was a detectable difference between cane
>> sugar and corn sugar *in beer*. If you remove the malt and hops, it's not
>> beer anymore.
>>
> True, and the malt and hops may add chemicals necessary to develop
> that off-taste. At least doing this as a control, though, would
> eliminate or implicate the sugar itself.
Dan Listermann did an experiment with 75% cane sugar and 25% malt extract.
He reported no "cidery" off flavors. MDixon has done it with 100% sugar
and gotten no "cidery" flavors. These experiments have been done many
times by many brewers. It's not like Larry is the first one to come
up with this idea. His conclusions just contradict most of what I've
seen from the other experimenters.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 12:22:24
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Dan Listermann did an experiment with 75% cane sugar and 25% malt extract.
> He reported no "cidery" off flavors. MDixon has done it with 100% sugar
> and gotten no "cidery" flavors. These experiments have been done many
> times by many brewers. It's not like Larry is the first one to come
> up with this idea. His conclusions just contradict most of what I've
> seen from the other experimenters.
Those experiments are noteworthy, but they do not relate to mine in the
slightest, and they do not conflict with each other. I set out to prove to
cane sugar, in fact, did *not* cause "cidery" flavors. I attempted to do
that by comparing the difference between cane and corn sugars, since no one
attributed "cidery" flavors (whatever that means) to corn sugar.
But the experiment "screwed up", and what I discovered was that there
actually *was* a flavor difference between cane and corn sugars. At the
time, I'm sure I used the word "cidery", but as I have said repeatedly, in
retrospect, that was not a good description of the difference.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 19:05:06
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>But the experiment "screwed up", and what I discovered was that there
>actually *was* a flavor difference between cane and corn sugars. At the
>time, I'm sure I used the word "cidery", but as I have said repeatedly, in
>retrospect, that was not a good description of the difference.
Let's be more strict with terminology here. A non-
blind trial with a single evaluation set and a single
evaluation subject yielded a perceived difference
between samples in the set. Your *conclusion* based on
that single, non-blind trial was that the difference in
sugar type was the cause.
Now, in any remotely academic setting, such a trial
would be the smallest of starting points toward drawing
a conclusion. Start with a larger sample seta and a
larger set of evaluating subjects, show repeatability,
and the conclusion you draw would be much stronger,
especially when that conclusion flies in the face of
the (often equally tenuous) conclusions of the tests
of others.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 15:12:43
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Joel wrote:
> Let's be more strict with terminology here. A non-
> blind trial with a single evaluation set and a single
> evaluation subject yielded a perceived difference
> between samples in the set. Your *conclusion* based on
> that single, non-blind trial was that the difference in
> sugar type was the cause.
Then let's get it down precisely. I was not the only taster. There were
four of us, and before you ask, no, I will not disclose their names without
their permission. I will not subject them to the same sort of abuse I have
been getting. We unanimously agreed that there was a difference between
the two beers. That is the only conclusion I am claiming, that there was a
difference. I make *no* conclusion as to what that difference was.
At the time, we discussed the flavor differences, but I now discount those
discussions as being prejudiced by the conventional wisdom, so it was easy
to conclude that maybe this "cidery" idea was right after all. [Remember:
the purpose of this experiment was to *bust* the idea that cane sugar
created "cidery" flavors.] I also discount those discussions because they
are entirely from memory. We did *not* make tasting notes, and even if we
had, I would disregard them as prejudiced for the same reasons. [BTW: No
one bothered to ask when this experiment was done. I'll simply state that
my memory of conversations I had in 1995 is not reliable.] I am relying
solely on my notes of how the beers were brewed, which *are* reliable, and
the clear memory that the four of us agreed they tasted different. END OF
STORY!
> Now, in any remotely academic setting, such a trial
> would be the smallest of starting points toward drawing
> a conclusion. Start with a larger sample seta and a
> larger set of evaluating subjects, show repeatability,
> and the conclusion you draw would be much stronger,
> especially when that conclusion flies in the face of
> the (often equally tenuous) conclusions of the tests
> of others.
No argument (other than the fact that I do *not* think it "flies in the
face" of any test anyone has yet described in this forum). We had no
intention of making a rigorous scientific study. Our purpose was to bust
what we perceived to be a myth. Since the results indicated that this
supposed "myth" had some merit after all, we decided to drop the subject
and accept the traditional wisdom. AFAIK, it has never been mentioned
again until yesterday. Frankly, I didn't expect to be subjected to some
sort of Spanish Inquisition! <smile >
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 13:35:27
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
>Frankly, I didn't expect to be subjected to some sort of Spanish Inquisition! <smile>
OK, somebody's gotta do it, so it might as well be me...
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!!!
OK, with that out of the way...Larry, I appreciate your report even
though my own results were different. I still wonder how you could have
gotten results so much different than I have when doing something
similar. You have raised some interesting questions, as did MDixon and
Dan Listermann on the opposite side, that really show there needs to be
some further work done in this area. But, after getting similarly
beaten up over my decion findings, I won't be the one doing this
experiment.
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2006 07:35:37
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!!!
Thank God! Now I can breath again! :-)
> OK, with that out of the way...Larry, I appreciate your report even
> though my own results were different. I still wonder how you could have
> gotten results so much different than I have when doing something
> similar. You have raised some interesting questions, as did MDixon and
> Dan Listermann on the opposite side, that really show there needs to be
> some further work done in this area. But, after getting similarly
> beaten up over my decion findings, I won't be the one doing this
> experiment.
Well, I think it's pretty easy to explain the difference: We were not
testing the same thing! You and the others were specifically looking for
"cidery" flavors (whatever that means) resulting from the use of a lot of
sugar. Yes, the motivation for my experiment had a similar basis, but as
it turned out (accidentally, I'll admit), it became a direct comparison of
cane sugar vrs. corn sugar. That's not what you did at all!
This "cidery" business seems to be getting in the way of people
understanding what my experiment was actually all about. Strangely, the
results of my experiment have nothing to do with "cidery" flavors! Nor did
it involve using stale extract or any of the other things that some have
thrown up [Hmmm... that was unintentional but very appropriate]. It was a
simple, direct, head-to-head comparison of cane sugar vrs. corn sugar.
Nothing else.
I am tempted to repeat it myself. I have a perfect opportunity coming up in
about 9 weeks where I will be hosting a fairly large gathering at my home.
I expect several other homebrewers, some BJCP certified, and a lot of
people who simply enjoy good beer. It would be easy to con them (I mean,
talk them) into doing a blind triangle test.
Unfortunately, I just don't have the time. It wouldn't provide me any
personal benefit, anyway. I seldom brew with *any* kind of sugar, and when
I do, I get exactly what I expect.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 17:38:21
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:22:24 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> But the experiment "screwed up", and what I discovered was that there
> actually *was* a flavor difference
no doubt
> between cane and corn sugars.
your guess
> At the
> time, I'm sure I used the word "cidery", but as I have said repeatedly, in
> retrospect, that was not a good description of the difference.
I have yet to see you define what the difference was, although several
have asked. Again, I have no doubt that there was something different, but
you are not providing any information (other than your guess) as to what
caused the difference let alone what the difference actually was. You're
also ignoring that there were most likely lots of other factors involved that
may have been the cause.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 12:47:31
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> [... meaningless drivel snipped...]
> John.
I see that you are using "slrn" as your news agent. If you would like me
to, I'll help you set up a killfile so that you will no longer have to be
annoyed by my postings.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2006 11:42:34
From: Jason
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>
>>[... meaningless drivel snipped...]
>>John.
>
>
> I see that you are using "slrn" as your news agent. If you would like me
> to, I'll help you set up a killfile so that you will no longer have to be
> annoyed by my postings.
>
Well at least no ones getting childish and in a snit. Everyone cool off
and go have a pint already.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 19:13:25
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
>John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> You must have been noticing something else going on in your experiment
>> than just the sugar.
>
>The cry of pseudo-scientists world wide. If you do not like the results,
>attack the experiment.
That's a reprehensible discussion tactic, which doesn't
add anything of substance. Such ad hominem tactics also
detract from your message.
>> AKA corn sugar, which is essentially the same thing as cane sugar or beet
>> sugar, both of which can fall under the general term "table sugar".
>
>This is misinformation! Cane sugar is sucrose. Corn sugar is glucose.
>They are *very* different!
Correct. I've tried to get that across here in the
past (often it comes up in discussions of priming rate
with the various sugar sources), obviously with limited
success.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 14:52:18
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Joel wrote:
> That's a reprehensible discussion tactic, which doesn't
> add anything of substance. Such ad hominem tactics also
> detract from your message.
You're right, of course. But I'm getting a little tired of having someone
dispute the bulk of what I say by merely declaring it to be wrong, without
the slightest evidence to the contrary. I explained the particulars of my
experiment. If someone wants to challenge it, then it is their obligation
to identify the specific element(s) that make it invalid rather than simply
dismissing it with a wave of their hand.
I'll be the first to admit that all of my ideas are not vast in their scope,
but I will absolutely guarantee them to be *at least* half-vast! <snicker >
> Correct. I've tried to get that across here in the
> past (often it comes up in discussions of priming rate
> with the various sugar sources), obviously with limited
> success.
Oh, well. My philosophy is it is best to act on what one knows, keep one's
mind open to the possibility one might be wrong, be willing to help others
when they seek advice, and not be concerned if they choose not to take it.
Besides, I *like* controversy. It actually causes some people to think!
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2006 20:35:50
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:52:18 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>
>> That's a reprehensible discussion tactic, which doesn't
>> add anything of substance. Such ad hominem tactics also
>> detract from your message.
>
> You're right, of course. But I'm getting a little tired of having someone
> dispute the bulk of what I say by merely declaring it to be wrong, without
> the slightest evidence to the contrary. I explained the particulars of my
> experiment. If someone wants to challenge it, then it is their obligation
> to identify the specific element(s) that make it invalid rather than simply
> dismissing it with a wave of their hand.
You hadn't even posted any details of your experiment at the time I made
the reply, so it would have been impossible for me to identify specific
elements... you hadn't given any. Yes, you posted them later, but you can't
expect that I'll respond to things you'll say in the future. All you said up
to that point in the thread I was responding to was that you had done an
experiment which gave results that were completely out of line with what I
believe to be true, and with what a lot of other brewers have reported. Based
on that amount of information, the only meaningful discussion I could engage
in was the possibility that there was a flaw in your experiment. I have no
doubt that you tasted something, but I was saying that I'm not convinced that
you are able to attribute it to anything specific.
BTW, there is lots of evidence to the contrary. MDixon has done a 100%
table sugar fermentation with no cidery flavors. Dan Listermann has done
a 75% table sugar fermentation with no cidery flavors. The original author
of that section of the BJCP guide has stated that the comment about cane
sugar causing cidery flavors is wrong and should be removed.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 07:40:23
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> You hadn't even posted any details of your experiment at the time I made
> the reply, so it would have been impossible for me to identify specific
> elements... you hadn't given any. Yes, you posted them later, but you
> can't expect that I'll respond to things you'll say in the future.
It turns out that you did indeed post your reply some 11 seconds prior to my
posting of the particulars. Of course, I *read* your reply several minutes
later, so I incorrectly assumed you had already seen it. My mistake.
OTOH, John, if you actually *wanted* the particulars, wouldn't it have made
more sense to ask for them rather than just dismissing the results as
flawed without that knowledge?
> BTW, there is lots of evidence to the contrary. MDixon has done a 100%
> table sugar fermentation with no cidery flavors. Dan Listermann has done
> a 75% table sugar fermentation with no cidery flavors. The original
> author of that section of the BJCP guide has stated that the comment about
> cane sugar causing cidery flavors is wrong and should be removed.
How do you think they would feel if I dismissed their results with a
statement like, "They must have not noticed something else on in their
experiment involving the sugar"?
Two points: If you had paid attention, you would have noted that I very
quickly backed off from the use of the word "cidery". There is no
definition for it, so it is nonsense to say that something does or does not
cause it. I will make *no* statement WRT cane sugar causing "cidery"
flavors. My experiment compared the flavor differences between cane sugar
and corn sweetener. At the time (this was done several years ago), I
mistakenly identified the difference as "cidery". In retrospect, this was
clearly unjustified. (More on this below.)
I read the conversation on the BJCP about this subject. The author of that
section and the others said that the statement *might* be wrong, and they
generally agreed that more information was needed. I *hope* they have the
sense to get good science about it rather than simply removing it based on
a "vote" of some kind. One thing is certain: if they decide to leave the
statement as is, then they need to change the word "cidery" or at the very
least, define what it means.
I am surprised that no one in this forum asked a very simple and obvious
question: "Larry, *why* did you bother to conduct this experiment?" The
answer is rather simple: I was on a myth busting mission. I had heard for
years that cane sugar caused "cidery" flavors. Based on my knowledge of
chemistry, it did not make sense, so I set out to prove that there was no
detectable difference between cane sugar and corn sugar. Imagine my
surprise!
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 08:54:41
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> I am surprised that no one in this forum asked a very simple and obvious
> question: "Larry, *why* did you bother to conduct this experiment?" The
> answer is rather simple: I was on a myth busting mission. I had heard for
> years that cane sugar caused "cidery" flavors. Based on my knowledge of
> chemistry, it did not make sense, so I set out to prove that there was no
> detectable difference between cane sugar and corn sugar. Imagine my
> surprise!
Larry, while I might have had different results than you, I can
certainly understand where you're coming from. I've had the same issues
since I did an experiement that showed (pretty conclusively) that
deced beers show ne benefits opver infused beers. BOY, people DO NOT
want to hear that!
BTW, would you define what "corn sweetener" is?
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 11:43:02
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> Larry, while I might have had different results than you, I can
> certainly understand where you're coming from. I've had the same issues
> since I did an experiement that showed (pretty conclusively) that
> deced beers show ne benefits opver infused beers. BOY, people DO NOT
> want to hear that!
Reminds me of the debate over HSA. [Let's not rehash that one, OK?] :-)
It's a common phenomenom. We all get set in our ways and our beliefs, and
get uncomfortable when someone says something contrary.
> BTW, would you define what "corn sweetener" is?
I think I have now done so several times this morning. At the risk of
wording it slightly differently so that someone will jump on me for being
"inconsistent" and use this as proof that the experiment was flawed, I'll
try again. <smile >
"Corn sweetener" is a generic term for the different sources of dextrose
available. There is the dry form (apparently some call this "corn sugar")
and the liquid form (apparently some call this "corn syrup"). Other than
the water content, they are the same (dextrose, along with whatever trace
impurities are present).
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 10:55:05
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> I think I have now done so several times this morning. At the risk of
> wording it slightly differently so that someone will jump on me for being
> "inconsistent" and use this as proof that the experiment was flawed, I'll
> try again. <smile>
>
> "Corn sweetener" is a generic term for the different sources of dextrose
> available. There is the dry form (apparently some call this "corn sugar")
> and the liquid form (apparently some call this "corn syrup"). Other than
> the water content, they are the same (dextrose, along with whatever trace
> impurities are present).
Yeah, I saw that you had after I posted. So, just to be clear to
myself, you used corn sugar? Dextrose?
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 13:20:20
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> Yeah, I saw that you had after I posted. So, just to be clear to
> myself, you used corn sugar? Dextrose?
Yes! 1.25# of it! <grin >
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 11:26:40
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol wrote:
> Yes! 1.25# of it! <grin>
OK, I guess we've got THAT straightened out! ;)
I think this is an experiment that needs to be replicated. And also
needs a blind, possibly triangle, tasting. Who's gonna volunteer????
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 14:41:20
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> I think this is an experiment that needs to be replicated. And also
> needs a blind, possibly triangle, tasting. Who's gonna volunteer????
If I were to do it again, it certainly would do the triangle test. I'll be
looking forward to hearing the results!
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 15:55:30
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > writes:
> Denny Conn wrote:
>
> > I think this is an experiment that needs to be replicated. And also
> > needs a blind, possibly triangle, tasting. Who's gonna volunteer????
>
> If I were to do it again, it certainly would do the triangle test. I'll be
> looking forward to hearing the results!
>
I'd be interested, but may not have time to do this until the fall.
I would imagine we'd use a pretty bland recipe (mild ale, clean yeast,
not too hoppy)?
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 13:12:42
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
Don Levey wrote:
> I'd be interested, but may not have time to do this until the fall.
> I would imagine we'd use a pretty bland recipe (mild ale, clean yeast,
> not too hoppy)?
Not necessarily. I'd be more interested in real-world, real-recipe
results, not something contrived for the experiment. The recipes used
should be ones that you'd really brew.
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 21:41:40
From: Derric
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
>> I'd be interested, but may not have time to do this until the fall.
>> I would imagine we'd use a pretty bland recipe (mild ale, clean yeast,
>> not too hoppy)?
>
> Not necessarily. I'd be more interested in real-world, real-recipe
> results, not something contrived for the experiment. The recipes used
> should be ones that you'd really brew.
I'm imagining a test with 4 beers brewed:
1. Fresh Liquid ME with X% sugar
2. Fresh Liquid ME with X% DME
3. STALE Liquid ME with X% sugar
4. STALE Liquid ME with X% DME
where X is, what, 25%? Whose got some 5+ year old bags of LME? :)
Derric
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2006 00:24:08
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
"Derric" <derric1961@removethis.yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:slrned270k.cko.derric1961@bhm29.hiwaay.net...
>>> I'd be interested, but may not have time to do this until the fall.
>>> I would imagine we'd use a pretty bland recipe (mild ale, clean yeast,
>>> not too hoppy)?
>>
>> Not necessarily. I'd be more interested in real-world, real-recipe
>> results, not something contrived for the experiment. The recipes used
>> should be ones that you'd really brew.
>
> I'm imagining a test with 4 beers brewed:
> 1. Fresh Liquid ME with X% sugar
> 2. Fresh Liquid ME with X% DME
> 3. STALE Liquid ME with X% sugar
> 4. STALE Liquid ME with X% DME
> where X is, what, 25%? Whose got some 5+ year old bags of LME? :)
I've got some extract that I'm scared to use, both liquid and dry (about 3
pounds of each), it is probably about 10 years old plus or minus, handed
down to me from a guy who wanted to brew a long time ago, bought a kit, but
never got around to it. I'd be curious to run some kind of experiment on
it. The beer would no doubt be a nice dark brown color due to the severe
aging, and the flavor, I cannot imagine. Not sure I've got time to run some
complex experiment... someday maybe.
I've also got some 10 year old Mt. Hood hops to boot. Can anyone say,
cheese??
Gee, I wonder if the yeast is dead.
--
Dave
"Just a drink, a little drink, and I'll be feeling GOOooOOooOOooD!" --
Genesis, 1973-ish
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 04:47:45
From: MarkMc
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
It seems that there isn't yet enough scientific evidence/invistigation
in to why these cidery tastes occur.
To summarise, it seems that there are a few things believed to be
responsible;
Sucrose - Invertase issue - sounded plausible to me when I heard it,
but there are a lot of suppositions and leaps of faith in there!
Yeast strain? Perhaps Belgian strains can consume sugar without
producing cidery flavours? I would be surprised, but not beyond the
realms of possibility.
Canned extract issues. This is my personal *belief* - no evidence, but
it seems that extract is in the equation a little too often to be
insignificant for my liking. There's also "That Home Brew Taste"
(THBT) associated with extracts...Although I understand that there are
some very good brands available now.
Larry's experiment was with "two identical cans of extract". This to
me is a very big assumption in the experiment (sorry to attack the
experiment here), and I would suggest that Larry undertakes the
experiment again with one can of extract and split the batch - it
shouldn't matter at what stage you add the sugar/corn syrup etc, and
also do the same for an all grain brew to see what results he gets. If
you don't have the setup for all grain Larry, perhaps a fellow local AG
brewer could provide you with the wort in the interests of this
experiment. I'm sure we'd all like to see what the result is.
Personally, I've used sucrose additions in all grain brews (pale ales,
porters etc, no Belgian's) without any noticable cidery effects. I've
never personally used kits or extract.
Regards,
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2006 09:48:15
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Raising your OG
|
MarkMc wrote:
> [... Lot's of good stuff snipped...]
Good summary, Mark!
> Larry's experiment was with "two identical cans of extract". This to
> me is a very big assumption in the experiment (sorry to attack the
> experiment here), and I would suggest that Larry undertakes the
> experiment again with one can of extract and split the batch
Not a problem. Since you know what the parameters of the experiment were,
your criticism is accepted. Yes, splitting the batch from the same can of
extract would eliminate one possibility (that I do not think is
significant, but I digress). If I were to repeat the experiment (with
extract), I would undoubtedly use bulk extract, taking from the same drug,
rather than a "kit" type of canned extract. An AG brew would be even
better, but I brew those to *drink* and I'm not too crazy about beers with
an OG around 1.040! <ROFL >
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
|
