Good afternoon, I hope someone can help.
I am looking at an old recipe for Mansfield Brewery 'Old Bailey'.
The recipe calls for quite a lot of invert sugar - 1500g in a 40 litre batch.
I've found instructions on how to make the invert sugar, but I cannot find any information on yield.....i.e. how much raw cane sugar do I need to make at least 1500g of invert??
Is it as simple as 1500g of raw cane will give me 1500g of invert after processing??
I've found these two sites quite useful, but no yield information.
http://www.northernbrewer.com/connect/2 ... ert-sugar/
http://www.unholymess.com/blog/beer-bre ... ers-invert
Invert Sugar
-
AnthonyUK
Re: Invert Sugar
Could you use Dextrose? It is about £2 per kg at LHBS
Or are you looking at a darker type such as golden syrup?
Or are you looking at a darker type such as golden syrup?
-
Mr. Dripping
Re: Invert Sugar
Hi Anthony,
Dextrose would work, but from my research it will not give the flavour complexity you get from using invert sugar.
I plan to cook it until I get invert #2 type which should be 60-70 EBC and this colour will of course carry through in the beer.
Dextrose would work, but from my research it will not give the flavour complexity you get from using invert sugar.
I plan to cook it until I get invert #2 type which should be 60-70 EBC and this colour will of course carry through in the beer.
Re: Invert Sugar
You will gain slightly. You are adding water (Molecular Weight 18 g/mol) to sucrose (MW 342 g/mol) to generate glucose and fructose (each with molecular weights of 180).
As such you generate 360/342 (1.05) equivalents. So 1.500 kg sucrose gives you about 1.575 kg invert.
As such you generate 360/342 (1.05) equivalents. So 1.500 kg sucrose gives you about 1.575 kg invert.
-
Graham
Re: Invert Sugar
I suppose that your actions will depend upon whether or not you feel that invert sugar, in its chemical sense, is really necessary. I am among those that are of the opinion that there is not a ha'p'orth of difference between using sucrose or invert sucrose as far as yeast performance or the performance of anything else in the brewing process. Indeed, I feel that it is possible or probable that there can be negative consequences in using invert sugar in high quantities because of glucose overload, which inhibits yeast growth, a phenomenon that does not occur with disaccharides.
There have been several hypotheses proposed for commercial brewers' apparent preference for invert sugar, but in my mind there are only two sensible possibilities; one is tradition, the other is traceability (Excise paranoia).
To go with tradition first, in the days of the earliest use of sugar in brewing, sugar was expensive and highly taxed, more expensive than malt until the sugar tax was removed in 1874. The cheapest source of sugar was what was known as Jamaican foot sugar. Sugar was supplied from the West Indies and other places in casks. At the bottom of the cask (the foot) was this semi-crystalline molasses-rich mass that could not be processed into ordinary loaf sugar because it refused to crystallise into loaves, so the foots were sold off cheaply. The production of sugar from cane was essentially an aqueous boiling down process, but the native artisans added lime juice to the boil (for a valid reason that I cannot remember), which would have acidified the solution and caused the sugar to become inverted. Inversion hinders crystallisation, so it seems to me that the residue at the foot of the casks would have been mostly invert sugar. Thus the sugar that the brewers ended up with was by default invert and therein lies the root of tradition.
Now to Excise paranoia. Even as late as the 1990s when I was involved giving instruction to a few publicans that were setting up little five-barrel breweries in their outhouses or cellars in an attempt to cash in on the Bruce's Brewery phenomenon, Excise were paranoid about sugar, even though duty was charged on original gravity and made such rigid concern pointless. There had to be a locked sugar store and a "sugar book" which was used to record sugar moving in and out of the store and for what reason. There had to be full traceability of all sugar movements beginning with the purchase invoices and delivery notes through to the brewing logs. If it was that strict in the 1990s, one can only imagine what it must have been in much earlier days. One way of ensuring propriety, was to buy all brewing sugar from a specialist brewing sugar processor, so that the Excise could scrutinise the processor's records if he thought some shady business was taking place. The only industrial process that could sensibly be applied was to invert the stuff so that it was easily distinguishable from a spurious sack of ordinary Tate and Lyle if it found its way onto the premises; and woe betide the brewer and his licence if such an item was discovered.
When my first brewing recipe book was published, I specified the same sugars that the brewers themselves confessed to using. One or two of the more adventurous home brewing shops did attempt to stock block invert and the maize-derived sugar syrups that were commonly used then and are still used today. Not only did they have difficulty sourcing the stuff in the small quantities they required, but a home brewing shop is an expensive place to buy sugar, so sales were far from brisk and the stuff sat on their shelves. Block (solid) invert seemingly absorbed moisture from the atmosphere and settled into a gooey morass that had to be thrown away.
By the time later editions of the book came out, these specialised brewing sugars had disappeared from the home brewing market and I was inundated with letters of complaint for specifying unobtainable ingredients or requests for a source of the sugars. So for the recipes in later editions I substituted ordinary household sugar, which I deemed okay because that was what most people were doing anyway.
However, one problem with such a substitution is that brewers block invert is rich in molasses and that imparts some flavour, which refined household does not.
If I was to revise it again today, I would specify a blend of ordinary white sugar and Muscavado sugar in a ratio that matches the colour specification of the target invert sugar. Muscavado is a molasses-rich raw sugar that is very similar to the raw Jamaican sugar that the traditional brewer's invert was made from; so similar that it is often referred to as Muscobados sugar. The use of this would supply the raw sugar background of traditional invert. Today the most readily available brand of Muscavado, Billington’s, is not inverted, but it can be inverted in the usual manner should the brewer deem it important.
There have been several hypotheses proposed for commercial brewers' apparent preference for invert sugar, but in my mind there are only two sensible possibilities; one is tradition, the other is traceability (Excise paranoia).
To go with tradition first, in the days of the earliest use of sugar in brewing, sugar was expensive and highly taxed, more expensive than malt until the sugar tax was removed in 1874. The cheapest source of sugar was what was known as Jamaican foot sugar. Sugar was supplied from the West Indies and other places in casks. At the bottom of the cask (the foot) was this semi-crystalline molasses-rich mass that could not be processed into ordinary loaf sugar because it refused to crystallise into loaves, so the foots were sold off cheaply. The production of sugar from cane was essentially an aqueous boiling down process, but the native artisans added lime juice to the boil (for a valid reason that I cannot remember), which would have acidified the solution and caused the sugar to become inverted. Inversion hinders crystallisation, so it seems to me that the residue at the foot of the casks would have been mostly invert sugar. Thus the sugar that the brewers ended up with was by default invert and therein lies the root of tradition.
Now to Excise paranoia. Even as late as the 1990s when I was involved giving instruction to a few publicans that were setting up little five-barrel breweries in their outhouses or cellars in an attempt to cash in on the Bruce's Brewery phenomenon, Excise were paranoid about sugar, even though duty was charged on original gravity and made such rigid concern pointless. There had to be a locked sugar store and a "sugar book" which was used to record sugar moving in and out of the store and for what reason. There had to be full traceability of all sugar movements beginning with the purchase invoices and delivery notes through to the brewing logs. If it was that strict in the 1990s, one can only imagine what it must have been in much earlier days. One way of ensuring propriety, was to buy all brewing sugar from a specialist brewing sugar processor, so that the Excise could scrutinise the processor's records if he thought some shady business was taking place. The only industrial process that could sensibly be applied was to invert the stuff so that it was easily distinguishable from a spurious sack of ordinary Tate and Lyle if it found its way onto the premises; and woe betide the brewer and his licence if such an item was discovered.
When my first brewing recipe book was published, I specified the same sugars that the brewers themselves confessed to using. One or two of the more adventurous home brewing shops did attempt to stock block invert and the maize-derived sugar syrups that were commonly used then and are still used today. Not only did they have difficulty sourcing the stuff in the small quantities they required, but a home brewing shop is an expensive place to buy sugar, so sales were far from brisk and the stuff sat on their shelves. Block (solid) invert seemingly absorbed moisture from the atmosphere and settled into a gooey morass that had to be thrown away.
By the time later editions of the book came out, these specialised brewing sugars had disappeared from the home brewing market and I was inundated with letters of complaint for specifying unobtainable ingredients or requests for a source of the sugars. So for the recipes in later editions I substituted ordinary household sugar, which I deemed okay because that was what most people were doing anyway.
However, one problem with such a substitution is that brewers block invert is rich in molasses and that imparts some flavour, which refined household does not.
If I was to revise it again today, I would specify a blend of ordinary white sugar and Muscavado sugar in a ratio that matches the colour specification of the target invert sugar. Muscavado is a molasses-rich raw sugar that is very similar to the raw Jamaican sugar that the traditional brewer's invert was made from; so similar that it is often referred to as Muscobados sugar. The use of this would supply the raw sugar background of traditional invert. Today the most readily available brand of Muscavado, Billington’s, is not inverted, but it can be inverted in the usual manner should the brewer deem it important.
Re: Invert Sugar
Graham, the difference between your usual sugars such as white granulated, golden, light muscavado, dark muscavado, demerara and the various darker inverted brewing syrups is huge imo. Try them out. You get lots of stone fruit and figgy goodness out of a home made inverted demerara sugar ( say to the No3, which is abut 120 EBC or so) that you would not from the straight demerara.
As for the OP , the unholymess site is best for making your own, so go with that. Watch your temperature as that is the key to get it tasting good
As for the OP , the unholymess site is best for making your own, so go with that. Watch your temperature as that is the key to get it tasting good
-
Graham
Re: Invert Sugar
That is probably true, but as both invert and non-invert sucrose are 100% fermentable, there should be no sugar left to taste after fermentation. Just the approx 5% unfermentable residue from the molasses will remain to impart flavour, which, in my view, will still be there whether or not the sugar is inverted.Hanglow wrote:Graham, the difference between your usual sugars such as white granulated, golden, light muscavado, dark muscavado, demerara and the various darker inverted brewing syrups is huge imo. Try them out. You get lots of stone fruit and figgy goodness out of a home made inverted demerara sugar ( say to the No3, which is abut 120 EBC or so) that you would not from the straight demerara.
-
DeGarre
- Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
- Posts: 512
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:04 pm
- Location: County Durham
Re: Invert Sugar
Belgians apparently are not too fussy about which sugar they use, anything that's on hand, and they seem to be brewing just fine. I used to cook inverts in the beginning but then just started using plain sugar and brown sugar, sometimes treacle or golden syrup, for convenience's sake.