Clibit Show full post »
Notlaw
Clibit wrote:


I've always thought the twang came out of the tin of goo rather than the bag of sugar. The twang happens regardless of what fermentables you add?


You cold well be right... I've not done enough kits to experience it.  Just going on hearsay really.  Old, oxidised extract could likely be a reason too.
Quote 0 0
Clibit
Notlaw wrote:


You cold well be right... I've not done enough kits to experience it.  Just going on hearsay really.  Old, oxidised extract could likely be a reason too.


Some kits just have a twang. It's maybe the way the extract is made/packaged? The MJ NZ Pale Ale has no twang, and was only bottled about 10 days ago. I did add a grain mash rather than sugar, but plenty of kits I've done with mini mashes still had a twang, for a few weeks/months at least.
Quote 0 0
John Barleycorn

It is possible to break down sucrose into fructose and glucose by boiling sugar with a tiny amount of acid (citric acid would do) the result is called invert sugar.
It is a bit of a faff though and could involve a couple of hours boiling to get the solution up to temperature and through to conversion.
The result is similar to Golden Syrup which is largely invert sugar [approximately 56% invert syrup, 44% sucrose] in a convenient tin.
Golden syrup is used by some brewers.

Whether you use the cheapest form of sugar or some sophisticated form [say, malt] is largely a matter of taste. The end result, production of ethanol, will always be the same.
If you like your ethanol tasty search out the sugar to suit the size of your wallet.

Of course sugar is rapidly becoming perceived as 'the new evil'. A sugar tax has been proposed. In the future there might be no cheap sugar. Finding a source at an affordable price in ANY form might end up being a big deal.



hoptimism - the realisation that each pint carries you forward to an ever more perfect ale...
Quote 0 0
Clibit
John Barleycorn wrote:

It is possible to break down sucrose into fructose and glucose by boiling sugar with a tiny amount of acid (citric acid would do) the result is called invert sugar.
It is a bit of a faff though and could involve a couple of hours boiling to get the solution up to temperature and through to conversion.
The result is similar to Golden Syrup which is largely invert sugar [approximately 56% invert syrup, 44% sucrose] in a convenient tin.
Golden syrup is used by some brewers.

Whether you use the cheapest form of sugar or some sophisticated form [say, malt] is largely a matter of taste. The end result, production of ethanol, will always be the same.
If you like your ethanol tasty search out the sugar to suit the size of your wallet.

Of course sugar is rapidly becoming perceived as 'the new evil'. A sugar tax has been proposed. In the future there might be no cheap sugar. Finding a source at an affordable price in ANY form might end up being a big deal.





Thanks. I have made invert a couple of times. Probably easier just to use dextrose! 

But different, obviously.
Quote 1 0
Robert

Pinto wrote:
I think the basis of the argument is that the process of cleaving the sucrose into fermentable sugars either stresses the yeast or encourages it to take a metabolic pathway that leads to undesirable flavour compounds being produced; not being a microbiologist, I cant say if this is right or wrong - but I think that using chlorinated water straight from the tap, coupled with a ferment at temperatures over optimal by an inexperienced brewer and people wondering why the beer "ready in 7 days !" tastes bad have overall given it a bad name.  Sugar was just an easy target.

That is definitely the argument. On one level, I don't remotely believe it. On another level, I almost always use sugar in my beers and I usually invert them first. [rolleyes]

Quote 0 0
Robert
John Barleycorn wrote:
Home brewed 'Country Wines' frequently contain material that yeast cannot touch but which might impart colour or flavour.
What the yeast gets to work on in most of those not so old recipes is ordinary granulated sugar. I know grape extract is another source of sugar but 'traditional' country wines without any hint of it being improper use a kilo or two of Tate & Lyle or Siver Spoon.
I think that some methods of brewing and certain types of ingredients deliberately avoid the cheap and cheerful in order to sell a more expensive, special and refined product with a far, far, superior profit margin.
Bottom line really is that C2H5OH is produced whichever way you shake the yeast cells up and whatever you mix in with them. No matter what any might tell you the effect of consuming said beverages comes out much the same too.
The rule of the market place is buy low sell high. I'm sure this applies just as much to every commercial endeavour. Bottom line, sugar is too cheap, suggest something more expensive. Its easy enough to create reasons why... 


For some reason, I missed this post yesterday. I think you're 100% correct.
Quote 0 0
Clibit
I've just added 10g of Gareth's home grown First Gold and 5g of cascade (It's only 9 litres), see what that does. Add more later if needed.

It tasted ok but I felt it needed a lift, for my purposes.
Quote 0 0
Clibit
Bottled, 10 x 500ml and 10 x 330ml.

Bit of white scum had formed on the dry hops, but the FG was still the same and tasted fine so fingers crossed.


Quote 0 0
Gregles
Clibit wrote:
Bottled, 10 x 500ml and 10 x 330ml.

Bit of white scum had formed on the dry hops, but the FG was still the same and tasted fine so fingers crossed.




I am sure it will be fine Phil, probably turn out a lovely beer
Quote 1 0
GHW
Clibit wrote:
Bottled, 10 x 500ml and 10 x 330ml.

Bit of white scum had formed on the dry hops, but the FG was still the same and tasted fine so fingers crossed.




Probably caused by my hops!
Quote 0 0
Clibit
GHW wrote:


Probably caused by my hops!


I wasn't going to point the finger.   [rofl]
Quote 0 0
Clibit
Here we go, first bottle. Its ok. Old school. Not bad, but not very interesting. The yeast isn't offering much, the hops are a bit peppery but not very fruity. Its ok, a nice simple drinker, cost very little to make and was a very quick brewday. And it's early days, should improve, hopefully. How would i change it? Yeast mainly i think. More character. Maybe some crystal malt.
Edit: it's grown on me a bit as I've worked my way down the glass. It's sort of like an English bottled bitter you'd get from the supermarket.
Edit 2: Enjoyed the second bottle more. Maybe I'm tuning in to it!
Edit 3: 3 days later and it's still improving, it's definitely fruity now too. I'm pleased with it.

IMG_20181101_201822370.jpg
Quote 1 0
Clibit
Came home from the weekend away and turns out my eldest lad and his mate polished off the last few bottles of this. Patrick says his mate asked him next day what beer they were drinking last night, so he just said it was his dad's home brew. Mate was shocked, thought it was great, apparently. 

Thanks for the home grown First Gold Gareth! I have some left, might do a similar brew to replace it. 
Quote 1 0
GHW
Nay bother my friend. Glad they made a decent brew!
I’ve got plenty more for a couple more brews.
If I can sort out my trellising I hope to have an even bigger crop next year!
Quote 0 0
Clibit
GHW wrote:
Nay bother my friend. Glad they made a decent brew!
I’ve got plenty more for a couple more brews.
If I can sort out my trellising I hope to have an even bigger crop next year!


I'll stick it in my e-diary around harvest time.   [wink]
Quote 0 0