Any thoughts on this? I thought the explanations were a little off.
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/trivia/tuesday-beer-trivia-earth-friendly-brewing/
I would probably say chlorine corrodes stainless steel, it doesn’t “wear” it down.
Brewing uses less than 10% of the sugar/starch content of the malt? Or is this alluding to the fact that a 5 gallon batch uses 11 lbs and I weigh 185?
Decent process will get you 72% yield, that’s 72% by weight of your malt. Even crappy process will “use” 60%. Maybe quizmaster was only using the mythical 10% of their brain.
I took it to mean that the starches comprise less than 10% of the total weight of the malt.
But of course they actually make up ~80+%, and that’s how you can extract 70+% by weight in converted extract. I wonder if somebody based this on weighing spent grains, forgetting to account for the fact that most of the weight of extracted sugar and protein has been replaced by retained water?
I guess I could be nerdy sometime and re-dry and re-weigh the spent grains after a brew, then compare against freshly milled malt of the same type.
But seriously… this is mega-trivial, IMO.
Yeah, but weren’t we here like, last week? It’s false information. Unlike bad keg purging methods, it won’t harm your beer, but it’s sloppy “education.” I’m not getting worked up. But I’m curious, gonna go read the 2005 article.
That might be beyond nerdy
So I skimmed the old article. It’s full of “facts” just thrown out there with no source or backing, and advice on how to save the world through green living. The usual kind of stuff you’d find in lifestyle advice in magazines. The facts/problems addressed may be imaginary (like using 10% of brain) but the advice is NO-brain stuff. Use spent grain instead of buying mulch, share equipment with friends to save $$…
I couldn’t help being the nerd. I didn’t weigh, but consulted a table. 1lb of malt, spent, retains 0.11gal of water, which will weigh 0.9lb – so spent grain will weigh ~60% MORE than it originally did! Totally useless information. Nerd on.
Wasn’t Ron fed up with an errant article concerning Scottish Ales a short while back as well? I recommend corrections for the trend of current issues and possibly adding a technical editor to better research future information if it’s in the budget.
the Tchnical Editor is listed as Gordon Strong I an early 2017 issue I just picked up beside my easy chair.
I believe Gordon Strong is MIT trained? He’s surely got the “technical” part nailed down. But I seriously doubt that a technical editor is tasked with proofreading every page. Therein lies the problem: someone else needs to know when to consult him, and these last two complaints seem to have arisen from somebody’s simply trusting that old material had been vetted the first time around.
EDIT I looked at the 2005 Zymurgy in question here, and see there WAS NO tech editor then. So going forward these problems may propagate less and less. But the website still needs to take care.
Cheapest approach would be to not view the AHA as an ultimate authority on all things brewing. Hence the forum, where anyone can point out differences, explain how they do things, discuss best practices, etc etc.
You mean I can’t believe everything I see on the internet? :o
Well, you can…
So… the message is: An American home brewer who is looking for an authority on a question should not consult the information provided by the American Homebrew Association for a solution. Instead, they should go to internet forums because it’s cheaper and has better information.
While I certainly do not question Gordon Strong‘s home brewing technical expertise, I do question the information that has been presented by the AHA in these instances.
I guess I expected more. Cheers!
One of my favorite debate tools is “SWYSI” so what your saying is…
No, I just said
Cheapest approach would be to not view the AHA as an ultimate authority on all things brewing. Hence the forum, where anyone can point out differences, explain how they do things, discuss best practices, etc etc.
But maybe I’m wrong, because I’m not really always looking for a source of authority in my hobbies.
I doubt that Gordon reviews the Tuesday quiz for technical accuracy. He reviews Zymurgy. The Tuesday quiz is on the web page.
As I noted, these instances of questionable info on the website involve recycling material from Zymurgy back before it was reviewed by a technical editor. The website should indeed be a trusted source of information for the homebrewer, maybe not the most in-depth (yep there are forums and such for deeper dives) but not misleading. Not sure what needs to be done.
Is this the mission statement of the AHA?
“With the purpose of promoting the community of homebrewers and empowering homebrewers to make the best beer in the world, the American Homebrewers Association staff works passionately to support its members and elevate awareness of homebrewing.”
If so, you have to make some assumptions to get to the point where THEY are appointing themselves as The Brewing Authority.
Or get all pissy and burn it down, what do I care.