Sugar or glucose

Hi

I'm just about to start my firs brew and thought I would use a kit to begin with, just so I got to know the brewig process.

When advising me on the kits for sale in my local homebrew shop, the assistant advised I could use sugar, or I could use glucose. He advised glucose was dearer, but was definately a better choice as far as results are concerned. I just wondered what everyones opinion on this was and whether they'd tried it?

Also, some of the better (more expensive!) kits he showed me didn't require sugar at all. He said that they used more malt (he may have said double the malt) and that they yielded much better results.

I would appreciate anyones opinion on what the assistant said and would be interested to see if you all agreed with him.

Cheers

I have found malt to be the best. I have had some good results with glucose. The sugar gave my brew that "homebrew" taste, which every now and then I do like.

If you want the best brew go for the malt.

What u can try if u want to be cheap, since glucose (or dextrose as other people may prefer to call it) seems to be quite a bit more expensive that plain table sugar (sucrose), you can boil the sucrose with some citric acid which will convert the sucrose to invert sugar. This boiling with acid hydrolises - breaks up - the glycosidic bond between the two sugar molecules (glucose and fructose) that make up sucrose. So in effect you have something that is just as good as glucose for less.

On the other hand as Boo boo said, malt probably is the better option if u like that real malty taste, just depends on whether u want some cheaper ok tasting beer or slightly more expensive but yummier beer - although it may depend on ur own taste too.