"anne" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote in message
...

"anne" wrote in message
...

Rusty Hinge wrote in message
...
The message
from "anne" contains these words:

Can anyone recommend any good books/websites on wine making for a
complete
beginner? I'd love to try making wines with some of the stuff I've
grown.

First Steps in Winemaking by C.J.J.Berry, ISBN 1-85486-139-5

(Now) Published by Nexus Special Interests


Thanks Rusty. Amazon have two left, must be a good book being as it
was
first published in 1960

42 years is as nothing in the history of winemaking

apparently! It's not too outdated is it?

Why on earth should it *ever* get outdated?
It is arguably the best introductory book to home winemaking there is.



Well I'm a complete beginner so I don't know these things you see. I do
know
that you add a few "powders n potions" though and I wondered if in 1960
they
were using different things to what people use today. It's not quite the
same as a 1960's cook book... well it might be, but anyway that's my
explanation Franz. I am definitely getting the book though, so thanks both
:-)

You will not be sorry.

Franz

"anne" wrote in message ...
Franz Heymann wrote in message
...

"anne" wrote in message
...

Rusty Hinge wrote in message
...
The message
from "anne" contains these words:

Can anyone recommend any good books/websites on wine making for a
complete
beginner? I'd love to try making wines with some of the stuff I've
grown.

First Steps in Winemaking by C.J.J.Berry, ISBN 1-85486-139-5

(Now) Published by Nexus Special Interests


Thanks Rusty. Amazon have two left, must be a good book being as it was
first published in 1960

42 years is as nothing in the history of winemaking

apparently! It's not too outdated is it?

Why on earth should it *ever* get outdated?
It is arguably the best introductory book to home winemaking there is.



Well I'm a complete beginner so I don't know these things you see. I do know
that you add a few "powders n potions" though and I wondered if in 1960 they
were using different things to what people use today. It's not quite the
same as a 1960's cook book... well it might be, but anyway that's my
explanation Franz. I am definitely getting the book though, so thanks both

I wish I could remember why I wasn't so keen on Berry's book, which I
think I've given away: I don't want to libel the man, but I seem to
remember I thought it *was* rather old-fashioned, not taking into
account the range of equipment and concentrates that had become
available by the time I got stuck in after years of making the only
occasional gallon or two when I felt like it. Perhaps, too, he was one
of those writers who were too concerned with imitating the wines you
could buy?

As I say, I can't remember, and will gladly accept it if others know
better.

The book I learned most from was W.H.T.Tayleur's *Penguin Book of Home
brewing and Winemaking*, and together with my own scrawled marginal
notes it's still where I go to look things up. He's very respectful of
the character of his ingredients, and genuinely seems to have tried
all his recipes. I'd have manhandled it a bit if I'd been his editor;
and others may like its section-divided index, but I don't. (I see
that I've made only about twelve corrections to a 20-page index in
over twenty years, which is amazing these days.) If it's still
available I'd recommend it wholeheartedly -- but it's good to have
more than one book, anyhow, to get a range of approaches.

Mike.

In article , Mike Lyle
writes
I wish I could remember why I wasn't so keen on Berry's book, which I
think I've given away: I don't want to libel the man, but I seem to
remember I thought it *was* rather old-fashioned, not taking into
account the range of equipment and concentrates that had become
available by the time I got stuck in after years of making the only
occasional gallon or two when I felt like it. Perhaps, too, he was one
of those writers who were too concerned with imitating the wines you
could buy?

As I say, I can't remember, and will gladly accept it if others know
better.

C.J.J.Berry's book was mainly a collection of recipes which had appeared
in the Amateur Winemaker in the 1960s, so material, equipment and
methods suggested would have been based on those times. I still refer to
it occasionally, more for ideas than for specific recipes, also for its
quite wide ranging suggestions for unusual and seldom made wines using
garden produce. Interestingly, it does not contain a recipe for tomato
wine and I have to admit that I have never been able to make a decent
wine from tomatoes, though others assure me it can be done.

One of the more helpful wine and beer making books for beginners was
'Home Wine Making & Brewing' by B.C.A.Turner, published for Boots the
Chemists by Wolfe in the 1970s. [SBN 72340426 7] It was always
available at Boots on their brew counter, but I don't think it is any
longer in circulation. (That book did not contain a tomato wine recipe.)
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

The message
from (Mike Lyle) contains these words:

I wish I could remember why I wasn't so keen on Berry's book, which I
think I've given away: I don't want to libel the man, but I seem to
remember I thought it *was* rather old-fashioned, not taking into
account the range of equipment and concentrates that had become
available by the time I got stuck in after years of making the only
occasional gallon or two when I felt like it. Perhaps, too, he was one
of those writers who were too concerned with imitating the wines you
could buy?

It is, after all, 'First Steps' in winemaking.

You could hardly accuse berry of trying to imitate commercial wines -
there are loads of recipes for all sorts of odd starting points, as well
as meads, methaglyn, cocktails, liqueurs etc.

As I say, I can't remember, and will gladly accept it if others know
better.

The book I learned most from was W.H.T.Tayleur's *Penguin Book of Home
brewing and Winemaking*, and together with my own scrawled marginal
notes it's still where I go to look things up. He's very respectful of
the character of his ingredients, and genuinely seems to have tried
all his recipes. I'd have manhandled it a bit if I'd been his editor;
and others may like its section-divided index, but I don't. (I see
that I've made only about twelve corrections to a 20-page index in
over twenty years, which is amazing these days.) If it's still
available I'd recommend it wholeheartedly -- but it's good to have
more than one book, anyhow, to get a range of approaches.

I have four books on brewing here and several more in store, waiting for
me to mantle some bookshelves. One of those which I have here is 'The
Complete Book of Home Winemaking' ominously written by H.E.Bravery - but
well worth getting. (Pan, ISBN 0 330 23503 6)

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.

The message
from martin contains these words:

There is a difference between fermenting alcohol and common or garden
rotting.
Wine is yeast pee and the stuff you mention is bacterium pee

The stuff in the Irish cafe in York was 150p AFAIR.

There you are then, 150 bacteria p

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.

The message
from Alan Gould contains these words:

One of the more helpful wine and beer making books for beginners was
'Home Wine Making & Brewing' by B.C.A.Turner, published for Boots the
Chemists by Wolfe in the 1970s. [SBN 72340426 7] It was always
available at Boots on their brew counter, but I don't think it is any
longer in circulation. (That book did not contain a tomato wine recipe.)

I have that Boots book too. Not bad. I also have Brewing Better Beers
(or a similar title) by Ken Shales.

This is not a good book for recipes unless you are a keg beer lover.
Indeed, I have a feeling that some of the recipes might be quite
dangerous because there is too much sugar in proportion to the malt.
(Personally, I use no sugar in beer, except half a teaspoon per pint
when charging bottles.)

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.

The message
from Rusty Hinge contains these words:

This is not a good book for recipes unless you are a keg beer lover.
Indeed, I have a feeling that some of the recipes might be quite
dangerous because there is too much sugar in proportion to the malt.
(Personally, I use no sugar in beer, except half a teaspoon per pint
when charging bottles.)

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.

Interesting recipe Rusty. Is that the natural sugars in the wort that
just get brewed on that? Is`nt the remaining brew quite weak in Alcohol
but I`d imagine gives you the full flavor of the original recipe.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:
The message
from Rusty Hinge contains these words:

This is not a good book for recipes unless you are a keg beer lover.
Indeed, I have a feeling that some of the recipes might be quite
dangerous because there is too much sugar in proportion to the malt.
(Personally, I use no sugar in beer, except half a teaspoon per pint
when charging bottles.)


Interesting recipe Rusty.

Er, which recipe?

Is that the natural sugars in the wort that
just get brewed on that? Is`nt the remaining brew quite weak in Alcohol
but I`d imagine gives you the full flavor of the original recipe.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm afraid.

But if you are referring to my pointing out that too much sugar in
proportion to malt is dangerous, no, the flavour arrived at is very
different from an all-malt recipe. Malt imparts body and flavour to
beer, whereas (white) sugar or dextrose just produces alcohol and carbon
dioxide.

White sugar does help to prevent hazy beer under some circumstances, but
I'd still go for the flavour and shut my eyes, or serve it in a pewter
tankard.

However, bumping-up the sugar content to increase alcohol can result in
the generation of higher alcohols, some of which are lethal in
proportions as small as 5 parts per million. (Assuming a fair quantity
of beer is consumed, of course.)

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:
The message
from Rusty Hinge contains these words:

This is not a good book for recipes unless you are a keg beer lover.
Indeed, I have a feeling that some of the recipes might be quite
dangerous because there is too much sugar in proportion to the malt.
(Personally, I use no sugar in beer, except half a teaspoon per pint
when charging bottles.)


Interesting recipe Rusty.

Er, which recipe?

Is that the natural sugars in the wort that
just get brewed on that? Is`nt the remaining brew quite weak in Alcohol
but I`d imagine gives you the full flavor of the original recipe.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm afraid.

But if you are referring to my pointing out that too much sugar in
proportion to malt is dangerous, no, the flavour arrived at is very
different from an all-malt recipe. Malt imparts body and flavour to
beer, whereas (white) sugar or dextrose just produces alcohol and carbon
dioxide.

White sugar does help to prevent hazy beer under some circumstances, but
I'd still go for the flavour and shut my eyes, or serve it in a pewter
tankard.

However, bumping-up the sugar content to increase alcohol can result in
the generation of higher alcohols, some of which are lethal in
proportions as small as 5 parts per million. (Assuming a fair quantity
of beer is consumed, of course.)

Decidedly not.
The yeasts involved never pee out higher alcohols in any substantial
quantities.
Barley wine is simply beer with the alcoholic strength of a wine, and it
does not have a significant higher alcohol content.

Franz

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:
The message
from Rusty Hinge contains these words:

This is not a good book for recipes unless you are a keg beer lover.
Indeed, I have a feeling that some of the recipes might be quite
dangerous because there is too much sugar in proportion to the malt.
(Personally, I use no sugar in beer, except half a teaspoon per pint
when charging bottles.)


Interesting recipe Rusty.

Er, which recipe?

Is that the natural sugars in the wort that
just get brewed on that? Is`nt the remaining brew quite weak in Alcohol
but I`d imagine gives you the full flavor of the original recipe.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm afraid.

But if you are referring to my pointing out that too much sugar in
proportion to malt is dangerous, no, the flavour arrived at is very
different from an all-malt recipe. Malt imparts body and flavour to
beer, whereas (white) sugar or dextrose just produces alcohol and carbon
dioxide.

White sugar does help to prevent hazy beer under some circumstances, but
I'd still go for the flavour and shut my eyes, or serve it in a pewter
tankard.

However, bumping-up the sugar content to increase alcohol can result in
the generation of higher alcohols, some of which are lethal in
proportions as small as 5 parts per million. (Assuming a fair quantity
of beer is consumed, of course.)

Decidedly not.
The yeasts involved never pee out higher alcohols in any substantial
quantities.
Barley wine is simply beer with the alcoholic strength of a wine, and it
does not have a significant higher alcohol content.

Franz

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:
The message
from Rusty Hinge contains these words:

This is not a good book for recipes unless you are a keg beer lover.
Indeed, I have a feeling that some of the recipes might be quite
dangerous because there is too much sugar in proportion to the malt.
(Personally, I use no sugar in beer, except half a teaspoon per pint
when charging bottles.)


Interesting recipe Rusty.

Er, which recipe?

Is that the natural sugars in the wort that
just get brewed on that? Is`nt the remaining brew quite weak in Alcohol
but I`d imagine gives you the full flavor of the original recipe.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm afraid.

But if you are referring to my pointing out that too much sugar in
proportion to malt is dangerous, no, the flavour arrived at is very
different from an all-malt recipe. Malt imparts body and flavour to
beer, whereas (white) sugar or dextrose just produces alcohol and carbon
dioxide.

White sugar does help to prevent hazy beer under some circumstances, but
I'd still go for the flavour and shut my eyes, or serve it in a pewter
tankard.

However, bumping-up the sugar content to increase alcohol can result in
the generation of higher alcohols, some of which are lethal in
proportions as small as 5 parts per million. (Assuming a fair quantity
of beer is consumed, of course.)

Decidedly not.
The yeasts involved never pee out higher alcohols in any substantial
quantities.
Barley wine is simply beer with the alcoholic strength of a wine, and it
does not have a significant higher alcohol content.

Franz

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:
The message
from Rusty Hinge contains these words:

This is not a good book for recipes unless you are a keg beer lover.
Indeed, I have a feeling that some of the recipes might be quite
dangerous because there is too much sugar in proportion to the malt.
(Personally, I use no sugar in beer, except half a teaspoon per pint
when charging bottles.)


Interesting recipe Rusty.

Er, which recipe?

Is that the natural sugars in the wort that
just get brewed on that? Is`nt the remaining brew quite weak in Alcohol
but I`d imagine gives you the full flavor of the original recipe.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm afraid.

But if you are referring to my pointing out that too much sugar in
proportion to malt is dangerous, no, the flavour arrived at is very
different from an all-malt recipe. Malt imparts body and flavour to
beer, whereas (white) sugar or dextrose just produces alcohol and carbon
dioxide.

White sugar does help to prevent hazy beer under some circumstances, but
I'd still go for the flavour and shut my eyes, or serve it in a pewter
tankard.

However, bumping-up the sugar content to increase alcohol can result in
the generation of higher alcohols, some of which are lethal in
proportions as small as 5 parts per million. (Assuming a fair quantity
of beer is consumed, of course.)

Decidedly not.
The yeasts involved never pee out higher alcohols in any substantial
quantities.
Barley wine is simply beer with the alcoholic strength of a wine, and it
does not have a significant higher alcohol content.

Franz

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

Decidedly not.
The yeasts involved never pee out higher alcohols in any substantial
quantities.
Barley wine is simply beer with the alcoholic strength of a wine, and it
does not have a significant higher alcohol content.

You're in stereo today Franz...........

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:164743

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

However, bumping-up the sugar content to increase alcohol can result in
the generation of higher alcohols, some of which are lethal in
proportions as small as 5 parts per million. (Assuming a fair quantity
of beer is consumed, of course.)

Decidedly not.
The yeasts involved never pee out higher alcohols in any substantial
quantities.
Barley wine is simply beer with the alcoholic strength of a wine, and it
does not have a significant higher alcohol content.

I'm afraid you're right there, Franz, but they don't need to be in
substantial quantities to be lethal.

Sugars by themselves, no problem. Malt by itself, no problem. Malt with
some sugar, no problem. Malt with too much sucrose, fructose, dextrose
etc and the enzymes present act on the mixture to generate small
quantities of unwelcome alcohols.

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

In article ,
Jaques d'Altrades writes:
| The message
| from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:
|
| However, bumping-up the sugar content to increase alcohol can result in
| the generation of higher alcohols, some of which are lethal in
| proportions as small as 5 parts per million. (Assuming a fair quantity
| of beer is consumed, of course.)
|
| Decidedly not.
| The yeasts involved never pee out higher alcohols in any substantial
| quantities.
| Barley wine is simply beer with the alcoholic strength of a wine, and it
| does not have a significant higher alcohol content.
|
| I'm afraid you're right there, Franz, but they don't need to be in
| substantial quantities to be lethal.
|
| Sugars by themselves, no problem. Malt by itself, no problem. Malt with
| some sugar, no problem. Malt with too much sucrose, fructose, dextrose
| etc and the enzymes present act on the mixture to generate small
| quantities of unwelcome alcohols.

Eh? I don't think that you are quite right. Paradoxically, the most
lethal alcohol normally found in booze is a LOWER one - methanol - and
it is extremely rare for the higher alcohols to be present in large
enough quantities to be seriously dangerous in a sugar-based brew.
Careless distillation, of course, can make an unhealthy situation
lethal, and the same does not apply to brewing from mixtures that
are not almost entirely sugar based (e.g. with a lot of starch or
protein) - hence the problems in Russia with potato vodka.

I think that the proportion of higher alcohols is more directly
associated with the proportion of complex sugars and even starch
(which can be converted by several mechanisms). And a pure malt
brew has a very HIGH proportion of such. I can certainly believe
that the situation is not as simple as "the more sugar, the purer
the ethanol", but it is more that way than the other.

The way that you keep the fusel oils down in a pure malt brew is
by controlling the conditions (principally temperature). This is
one reason that British, top fermented beers are more headache
inducing than continental, bottom fermented lagers. The latter
are brewed at a somewhat lower (and traditionally more controlled)
temperature. Before modern technology, it was common for beer to
be more headache inducing at certain times of year.

I have my old (professional) brewing book somewhere, and it might
have something on this. It certainly did go into the importance
of temperature control in reducing the fusel oil content, but I
can't remember precisely what it said.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.