"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

[snip]

The way that you keep the fusel oils down in a pure malt brew is
by controlling the conditions (principally temperature).

I think pH is more important than temperature. Too high a pH favours the
production of glycerol.
This shows itself up when one tries to make banana wine. Banana juice
ferments to glycerol at the drop of a hat unless a substantial amount of
citric acid is used in the must.

[snip]

Franz

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
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...........

Yes. I don't know what caused that message to go twice. My apologies.
By the way, I meant to say "a significant content of higher alcohols".
{:-((

Franz

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
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.

I doubt if a fermentation carried out by the usual benign yeasts will ever
produce anything other than a negligible amount of higher alcohols. I did
once force a fermentation as far as I could by slowly feeding small
additional amounts of sugar to a ferment. I managed to get it up to 14%
alcohol. It was a grand wine. I am still alive after 3 gallons of it.
(Not all in one sitting.)

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.

As far as I understand the biochemistry of alcoholic fermentation, an enzyme
acts on an individual sugar molecule, converting it into alcohol plus
whatever, . The enzyme is not aware of what other molecules may be in the
mix whilst it is operating on a specific one. Only when one molecule has
been demolished does it turn its attention to another one. (Roughly
speaking, fermentation is a two-body process, and not a three-body process)

Franz

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Eh? I don't think that you are quite right.

I do.

Paradoxically, the most
lethal alcohol normally found in booze is a LOWER one - methanol -

Which is not produced by fermentation, but usually by distillation of wood.

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.

There shouldn't be any. It's only in malt brews with too much added sugar.

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.

Probably because unscrupulous bootleggers treat the potato starch with
industrial acids to release the sugars.

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

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

I doubt if a fermentation carried out by the usual benign yeasts will ever
produce anything other than a negligible amount of higher alcohols. I did
once force a fermentation as far as I could by slowly feeding small
additional amounts of sugar to a ferment. I managed to get it up to 14%
alcohol. It was a grand wine. I am still alive after 3 gallons of it.
(Not all in one sitting.)

I've brewed wines to a much higher percentage than that. I once brewed a
beer which, when poured into a glass exhibited an alcohol-line above its
surface. With the carboy I brewed it in in a water bath with an
immersion heater, it took nine months to brew out, and two years in the
bottle for the (½ teaspoon of) sugar to produce fizz.

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.

As far as I understand the biochemistry of alcoholic fermentation, an enzyme
acts on an individual sugar molecule, converting it into alcohol plus
whatever, . The enzyme is not aware of what other molecules may be in the
mix whilst it is operating on a specific one. Only when one molecule has
been demolished does it turn its attention to another one. (Roughly
speaking, fermentation is a two-body process, and not a three-body process)

I haven't gone into the chemistry of it, but it is, I thought, a
well-known no-no to bump-up the strength of a (commercial kit) brew
containing malt and sugar by adding more sugar. People have died as a
result.

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

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

I doubt if a fermentation carried out by the usual benign yeasts will
ever
produce anything other than a negligible amount of higher alcohols. I
did
once force a fermentation as far as I could by slowly feeding small
additional amounts of sugar to a ferment. I managed to get it up to 14%
alcohol. It was a grand wine. I am still alive after 3 gallons of it.
(Not all in one sitting.)

I've brewed wines to a much higher percentage than that. I once brewed a
beer which, when poured into a glass exhibited an alcohol-line above its
surface. With the carboy I brewed it in in a water bath with an
immersion heater, it took nine months to brew out, and two years in the
bottle for the (½ teaspoon of) sugar to produce fizz.

My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

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.

As far as I understand the biochemistry of alcoholic fermentation, an
enzyme
acts on an individual sugar molecule, converting it into alcohol plus
whatever, . The enzyme is not aware of what other molecules may be in
the
mix whilst it is operating on a specific one. Only when one molecule
has
been demolished does it turn its attention to another one. (Roughly
speaking, fermentation is a two-body process, and not a three-body
process)

I haven't gone into the chemistry of it, but it is, I thought, a
well-known no-no to bump-up the strength of a (commercial kit) brew
containing malt and sugar by adding more sugar. People have died as a
result.

I did not know that, I am genuinely most surprised to read it.

Franz

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

I doubt if a fermentation carried out by the usual benign yeasts will
ever
produce anything other than a negligible amount of higher alcohols. I
did
once force a fermentation as far as I could by slowly feeding small
additional amounts of sugar to a ferment. I managed to get it up to 14%
alcohol. It was a grand wine. I am still alive after 3 gallons of it.
(Not all in one sitting.)

I've brewed wines to a much higher percentage than that. I once brewed a
beer which, when poured into a glass exhibited an alcohol-line above its
surface. With the carboy I brewed it in in a water bath with an
immersion heater, it took nine months to brew out, and two years in the
bottle for the (½ teaspoon of) sugar to produce fizz.

My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

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.

As far as I understand the biochemistry of alcoholic fermentation, an
enzyme
acts on an individual sugar molecule, converting it into alcohol plus
whatever, . The enzyme is not aware of what other molecules may be in
the
mix whilst it is operating on a specific one. Only when one molecule
has
been demolished does it turn its attention to another one. (Roughly
speaking, fermentation is a two-body process, and not a three-body
process)

I haven't gone into the chemistry of it, but it is, I thought, a
well-known no-no to bump-up the strength of a (commercial kit) brew
containing malt and sugar by adding more sugar. People have died as a
result.

I did not know that, I am genuinely most surprised to read it.

Franz

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:55:32 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

even Belgian beers don't manage more than12%
--
Martin

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:55:32 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

even Belgian beers don't manage more than12%
--
Martin

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

I doubt if a fermentation carried out by the usual benign yeasts will
ever
produce anything other than a negligible amount of higher alcohols. I
did
once force a fermentation as far as I could by slowly feeding small
additional amounts of sugar to a ferment. I managed to get it up to 14%
alcohol. It was a grand wine. I am still alive after 3 gallons of it.
(Not all in one sitting.)

I've brewed wines to a much higher percentage than that. I once brewed a
beer which, when poured into a glass exhibited an alcohol-line above its
surface. With the carboy I brewed it in in a water bath with an
immersion heater, it took nine months to brew out, and two years in the
bottle for the (½ teaspoon of) sugar to produce fizz.

My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

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.

As far as I understand the biochemistry of alcoholic fermentation, an
enzyme
acts on an individual sugar molecule, converting it into alcohol plus
whatever, . The enzyme is not aware of what other molecules may be in
the
mix whilst it is operating on a specific one. Only when one molecule
has
been demolished does it turn its attention to another one. (Roughly
speaking, fermentation is a two-body process, and not a three-body
process)

I haven't gone into the chemistry of it, but it is, I thought, a
well-known no-no to bump-up the strength of a (commercial kit) brew
containing malt and sugar by adding more sugar. People have died as a
result.

I did not know that, I am genuinely most surprised to read it.

Franz

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:55:32 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

even Belgian beers don't manage more than12%
--
Martin

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

I've brewed wines to a much higher percentage than that. I once brewed a
beer which, when poured into a glass exhibited an alcohol-line above its
surface. With the carboy I brewed it in in a water bath with an
immersion heater, it took nine months to brew out, and two years in the
bottle for the (½ teaspoon of) sugar to produce fizz.

My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

There is a kit which claims to brew up to 21%. Contains (IIRC) bentonite
and for some reason, activated charcoal.

In the days of degrees proof, Formula 67 yeast brewed to 33°, whatever
that converts to as a percentage.

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.

As far as I understand the biochemistry of alcoholic fermentation, an
enzyme
acts on an individual sugar molecule, converting it into alcohol plus
whatever, . The enzyme is not aware of what other molecules may be in
the
mix whilst it is operating on a specific one. Only when one molecule
has
been demolished does it turn its attention to another one. (Roughly
speaking, fermentation is a two-body process, and not a three-body
process)

I haven't gone into the chemistry of it, but it is, I thought, a
well-known no-no to bump-up the strength of a (commercial kit) brew
containing malt and sugar by adding more sugar. People have died as a
result.

I did not know that, I am genuinely most surprised to read it.

Back in the 'seventies two Irishmen bought a stout kit and doubled the
sugar content. They drank themselves silly. One stayed silly for good
and the other died.

I was warned against this method of 'improving' beer by the proprietor
of a homebrew shop (who showed me the report in a homebrew magazine).
His advice was to reduce the amount of water if I wanted the beer
stronger.

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

The message
from martin contains these words:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:55:32 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


My understanding is that even the most potent of the yeasts die out at a
concentration of just about 14 percent. So any further fermentation must
be by the bare enzymes left over. That is an exceedingly slow process, as
you found out.

even Belgian beers don't manage more than12%

Maybe they don't try to brew stronger ones? (I like the 9% Chimay........)

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