There's not much in the way of sugars. Just two, called saccharum and sugar. Which is a bit confusing as I thought saccharum was just another word for sugar. I would have thought that it was just an inconsistency in notation. Except a couple of beer contain both.
What are they then? I’m guessing at least one is a type of invert. And perhaps the “sugar” was raw cane sugar. Who knows?
Several of the beers – 80/-, BB, Ex B and XXX Porter – contained no sugar at all. While 100/- and 140/- contained more than 10%. Presumably, because of the higher gravity.
| Binnie sugars 1903 - 1905 | ||||
| Beer | Style | Saccharum | sugar | total sugar |
| TB | Table Beer | 4.51% | 4.51% | |
| 80/- | Ale | 0.00% | ||
| 100/- | Ale | 5.88% | 5.88% | 11.76% |
| 140/- Ale | Ale | 4.17% | 8.33% | 12.50% |
| BB | Pale Ale | 0.00% | ||
| Ex B | Pale Ale | 0.00% | ||
| 54/- IPA | IPA | 7.69% | 7.69% | |
| 60/- IPA | IPA | 5.71% | 5.71% | |
| XXX Porter | Porter | 0.00% | ||
| DBS | Stout | 5.78% | 5.78% | |
| Source: | ||||
| Binnie brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archives, document number BH/6/1/1/1. | ||||
Would brewing sugars like this be considered unhealthy sugars?
ReplyDeleteOscar
Only if they had arsenic in them.
DeleteObviously we live in a time where we now know the health implications of sugar consumption.
DeleteOscar
So does anonymous understand that the brewing sugars are primarily rendered into alcohol? Less refined sugars have more additional components, but I don't think trace analysis was available at the time.
ReplyDelete