Maltodextrin

[Argentum]

But I use it and it works, why not try using some and see for yourself, that's what I did then you may form your own opinion of conflicting theories.

I've added one avoirdupois pound of maltodextrin to 6 US gallons twice, and both times I detected the same mouthfeel as for when I brew (which I do often enough, and since roughly 1985) without using it. All it did was raise the FG. This is what all of the peer reviewed scientific evidence post around the 60's seems to conclude also.

On a similar vein: The various maltsters can make a profit selling dextrin malts for some reason, and consumers buy their line for some reason also. I was sold on Carapils for years until I tried brewing without using it and noticed nothing different.

 

[nige]

Well don't use It, I wasn't questioning if it works or not when I posted this because it does for me have quite a difference, we must have different sensory mouthfeels. Most powdery disolvable added to water have an affect on the original viscosity I find, simple sugar does however this ferments out and affects sweetness, I find the maltodextrin does neither of these and so remains dissolved. Much like adding corn flour too a thin soup. I suppose it's each to their own.

 

[nige]

I have to say there's a few ingredients I want to play with xanthan gum being one and more traditional ingredients such as carapils amongst other grains.

 

[Argentum]

Author and researcher Scott Janish on dextrins and mouthfeel: http://scottjanish.com/dextrins-and-mouthfeel/

After doing the research and test results back on my NEIPA, I’m leaning more towards dextrins not really having that much of an impact, which is certainly something I didn’t see coming. Mouthfeel may have more to do with proteins, beta-glucans, ethanol, glycerol, and melanoidins than with total dextrin content (or the combination of all of them).

 

[nige]

Just don't use it, a few of us do. No worries.

 

[Argentum]

If it matters, de Clerck and Hough both stated that melanoidins contribute to the perception of greater mouthfeel.

DeClcrck,J.CoursdeBrasserie,UniversitydeLouvain—InstitutAgronomique,SectiondeBrasserie,Heverlee-Louvain,1962.
Hough,J.S.,Briggs,D.E.,Stevens,R.&Young,T.W.MaltingandBrewingScience,ChapmanandHall,London,1982.

 

[nige]

I am aware of differences of opinion but my op wasn't about that really. It's no problem, thanks.

 

[PhilBrew]

Hi Argentum

Every serious peer reviewed study I've ever read has concluded that dextrins contribute little if anything to mouthfeel. Here is but one of them:

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1989.tb04650.x

... "every peer reviewed study" you say, but then the very one you chose to cite doesn't say that ... it says (with my highlights, for emphasis) ...

In carbonated beer, the amount of dextrins needed to produce an increase in viscosity detectable by judges was 52 g/litre, which raised the viscosity by 0.31 cP as measured by capillary viscometry. Since beer usually contains between 10 and 50 g/litre of dextrins, it is concluded that dextrins are not the sole determinant of beer viscosity.

... there's a bit of a leap from "not the sole determinant" (implying that it is a determinant, just not the only one) to "contribute little if anything", isn't there ... and that 52 g/litre, relating to viscosity of 0.31 cP, isn't an absolute either, as that paper goes on to point out, the threshold for increases in viscosity/mouthfeel drops to 0.10 cP for decarbonated beer. I'm quite sure I've read elsewhere that that's not a step function, and the perception of viscosity/mouthfeel will increase as carbonation decreases (and temperature increases).

Now, I don't want to come across all xenophobic ... all "Bloody Americans, coming over here trying to tell us how to make beer ... we've been making beer since before they could spell 'declaration of inderpandance'." ... but you do need to recognise that we're not all in Ohio on this forum and Nige did explicitly state he was using this in "bitter or strong barleywine types" of beer ... styles which are likely to have been brewed fairly dextrin rich, in the first place, and then he's adding more malto-dextrin into them ... they're also styles which are likely to be served less highly carbonated and warmer than many other styles (and served less highly carbonated and warmer here in the UK than where you are ) ... do you see where I'm going yet? The conclusion of that paper isn't "dextrins contribute little if anything to mouthfeel", it's telling us that there are thresholds we have to get to before we can sense their impact, but the thresholds are lower for (different types of) beers, served in particular ways.

Cheers, PhilB

 

[Argentum]

I don't engage with those who would stoop to the debased level of the "argument from intimidation", but I do accept apologies.

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

Ayn Rand

 

[nige]

My first attempt was on a lager I thought was thin and so I added medium Dme, repitched with belgian yeast and fed sugar syrup making it around 10% albeit again on the thin side due to the sugar. So on tasting at the end of primary fermentation I chose to add maltodextrin with the priming sugar. This brought the viscosity closer to where a higher abv belgian type beer should have been had I brewed different originally . I believe Phil to be right with different beers temperature and carb levels have a huge difference in the first place but it has a use. I do intend to play with other things in future irispective of papers written . As for head retention it's hard to say as conditioning is needed and that's time. No argument intended when I posted op. Each to their own with brewing.

 

[Argentum]

The viscosity increase induced via adding dextrins only translates to the perception of improved mouthfeel at a minimum threshold level of 50 g/liter of dextrins per Scott Janish, who sites this from his researching of peer reviewed brewing literature.

Scott's test batch which contained a massive 50% by weight of grist as Carapils malt in the mash only lab analyzed at a certified 41.3 g/liter dextrin. He concluded that this is why even for 50% of the grist being Carapils malt it did not manifest itself as a perceived improvement in mouthfeel.

 

[PhilBrew]

Scott's test batch which contained a massive 50% by weight of grist as Carapils malt in the mash only lab analyzed at a certified 41.3 g/liter dextrin. He concluded that this is why even for 50% of the grist being Carapils malt it did not manifest itself as a perceived improvement in mouthfeel.

... aaahhh, at last something we can agree on ... but all that "proves" is Carapils isn't very good for adding dextrins ... and this thread isn't about Carapils, it's about Maltodextrin, it even says so in the title

The viscosity increase induced via adding dextrins only translates to the perception of improved mouthfeel at a minimum threshold level of 50 g/liter of dextrins per Scott Janish, who sites this from his researching of peer reviewed brewing literature.

... you still haven't read that paper that you posted the link to, have you ... OK, go on then, since it's only a quick "copy and paste", I'll point you to the pertinent passage ...

The detection threshold for viscosity in fully carbonated beer was 0.31 cP. A value of 0.10 cP was found for decarbonated beer. This latter number compares rather well with the value of 0.14 cP reported by Noble and Bursick7 for white wine. The increase in the value of the threshold between decarbonated and carbonated beer stresses the effect of carbon dioxide on beer mouthfeel. This may also explain why stouts are perceived as heavier, creamier, more viscous beers than ales or especially lagers. Stouts do not necessarily have a higher specific gravity than lagers but they are less carbonated.

... now we know that the 0.31 cP figure for the detection threshold in "fully carbonated" beer (the study does say "A commercial light (dextrin-free) beer was used for threshold determination." ... so they're probably talking Coors Light levels of fizziness ) equates to around 50 g/litre of dextrins, so we can assume that that 0.10 cP figure would be reached with around 15 g/litre ... and for a moderately carbonated bitter/barley wine you may only need to get more than around 35 g/litre dextrins before you start noticeably adding mouthfeel by adding more dextrins ... so you see, the science REALLY is consistent with both Nige's experiences and Scott Janish's :hat:

Although, TBH, I really don't understand why Scott Janish felt, given that all his research showed that he'd need to brew a beer (served as cold and fizzy as he would serve it (see pic in his write-up, an inch of head on top and LOTS of condensation on the glass)) with more than 50 g/litre of dextrins in it to have an effect on mouthfeel ... and having brewed a beer with only "41.3 g/liter" ... he still felt justified in concluding that "I’m leaning more towards dextrins not really having that much of an impact"

Cheers, PhilB​

 

[Argentum]

I will grant that reduced levels of carbonation can present themselves as improved mouthfeel, as I've noticed that to be a big reason as to why I prefer draft over bottled, but oddly the article states that in 1957 de Clerck rejected the CO2 and mouthfeel association.,