[Wilbur]

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.

Q.2   Brewing uses less than ___% by weight of your malt.
Question 2: Brewing uses less than 10 percent of your malt, so composting the rest or upcycling into spent-grain baked goods and flour is a no-brainer.

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?

[Robert]

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.

[denny]

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.

Q.2   Brewing uses less than ___% by weight of your malt.
Question 2: Brewing uses less than 10 percent of your malt, so composting the rest or upcycling into spent-grain baked goods and flour is a no-brainer.

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?

I took it to mean that the starches comprise less than 10% of the total weight of the malt.

[Robert]

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on weighing spent grains, forgetting to account for the fact that most of the weight of extracted sugar and protein has been replaced by retained water?

[dmtaylor]

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.

[Robert]

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.

[klickitat jim]

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.

That might be beyond nerdy

[Robert]

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 $$....

[Robert]

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.

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.

[BrewBama]

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.

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.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hopfenundmalz]

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.

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.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the Tchnical Editor is listed as Gordon Strong I an early 2017 issue I just picked up beside my easy chair.

[Robert]

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.

[klickitat jim]

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.

[Robert]

You mean I can't believe everything I see on the internet?

[klickitat jim]

Well, you can...