Pale Malt And Invert Sugar Equivalence

[midsomerjambo]

Hi,

I have an old Dave Line (RIP) recipe book that I've used for 40-odd years and I've always had good results from it. However, more often than not, Dave's recipes include an element of sugar as well as the fermentable grains. I'd like to move away from using invert sugar in particular as it doesn't seem to add anything other than increasing the OG. So I was wondering if anyone could give me a steer on how much additional crushed pale malt I'd need to use when mashing to achieve the same OG as if I'd used 500g of invert sugar (normally added at the boil, according to Dave's instructions). I'm not even sure if this is a sensible question but hopefully it is

Best regards, MSJ

 

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

Very sensible question MSJ

but not necessarily a simple answer

When we mash a grain, the mash releases the sugar from the grain (in the grain it starts as starch) and not all the potential sugar will be released from the starch. This is what as known as mash efficiency, around 70ish% is good. The exact temperature also determines the type of sugar is produced. Around 65C produces simple sugars that ferment easily, whilst higher temps (68C) produce more complex sugars that do not ferment out and remain in your beer. You want these more complex sugars as this is where your taste is

Different malts have differing diastatic power (i.e. the amount of sugar that they will release) so the amount needed to replace sugar depends on the malt

So if all you did was just add a pale malt which doesn't produce any complex sugars, you wouldn't be achieving the difference in taste that you are looking for. To do this you might be better off with a more specialist malt, depending on the flavour you are looking for

What is your favourite style of beer? - I will see what I could suggest

How do you build your recipes?

 

[The Baron]

If you use a recipe builder just do your normal recipe take a note of the ABV then remove the sugar and add more of the grain until you reach the same ABV.
Sugar is more fermentable than grains as a general rule so you will need more grain than sugar

 

[midsomerjambo]

Very sensible question MSJ

but not necessarily a simple answer

When we mash a grain, the mash releases the sugar from the grain (in the grain it starts as starch) and not all the potential sugar will be released from the starch. This is what as known as mash efficiency, around 70ish% is good. The exact temperature also determines the type of sugar is produced. Around 65C produces simple sugars that ferment easily, whilst higher temps (68C) produce more complex sugars that do not ferment out and remain in your beer. You want these more complex sugars as this is where your taste is

Different malts have differing diastatic power (i.e. the amount of sugar that they will release) so the amount needed to replace sugar depends on the malt

So if all you did was just add a pale malt which doesn't produce any complex sugars, you wouldn't be achieving the difference in taste that you are looking for. To do this you might be better off with a more specialist malt, depending on the flavour you are looking for

What is your favourite style of beer? - I will see what I could suggest

How do you build your recipes?

Many thanks for your reply Obadiah. I have fairly simple tastes for the most part and tend to use mostly Maris Otter pale malt, 125-250g of crystal malt, occasionally the odd adjunct and Fuggles and Goldings hops. I get my yeast from either Wadworths in Devizes or Kettlesmith in Bradford on Avon and these both lend themselves to a nice consistent English bitter ale style which is what I like - I've just put 25 litres of a Wadworth's Old Timer recipe in to ferment today. I pretty much follow the instructions in the Dave Line book, although I've been known to branch out on occasion (I have 40 pints of a Kolsch-style all-grain recipe (no added sugar lol) in my storage fridge at the moment, biding its time till the weather improves and I have high hopes for that). I realise that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since Dave published his book, but I'm still pretty impressed with the results I've had over the years. I have a Brew Devil for the mash and the boil which simplifies things compared to the old days when I had to commandeer the kitchen stove and a 25 litre stock pot!

Best regards, MSJ

 

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

Based on a 19L recipe 500gms of invert sugar would give you 1.6% ABV (making some assumptions about your mash efficiency)

500gms of MO would give you 0.5% ABV but 1.6kg MO would give you 1.7% ABV

1.6kg of Crystal 100 would also give you 1.6 ABV

Although I would watch your percentage of crystal to pale - you wouldn't want this to be more than 15 - 20%

Hope that makes sense and, of course, you need to amend the amounts to suit your batch size

This is a nice simple pale ale - 19L - it only uses pale

Good luck!

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I'd like to move away from using invert sugar in particular as it doesn't seem to add anything other than increasing the OG.

I think most traditional British brewers would regard the flavour of invert sugar as pretty much indispensable to the taste of 20th-century British beers, especially the darker inverts and in styles such as West Midland milds.

Don't fall for the CAMRA propaganda that equates any use of adjuncts as akin to making Watneys - it has a place, and "proper" brewer's invert should be your sugar of choice, it's not that hard to make.

Having said that, in paler beers you're probably better off going all-grain.

 

[midsomerjambo]

I think most traditional British brewers would regard the flavour of invert sugar as pretty much indispensable to the taste of 20th-century British beers, especially the darker inverts and in styles such as West Midland milds.

Don't fall for the CAMRA propaganda that equates any use of adjuncts as akin to making Watneys - it has a place, and "proper" brewer's invert should be your sugar of choice, it's not that hard to make.

Having said that, in paler beers you're probably better off going all-grain.

Thanks for that. What I've tended to do is mix fructose and glucose 50/50 dissolved in a little warm water and added to the boil, rather than physically inverting white table sugar. Would you advise the latter method? Presumably I could invert brown or muscavado using that method if I wanted monosaccharides with the colour (never tried that).

Regards, MSJ

 

[peebee]

@midsomerjambo: I'd agree with @Northern_Brewer even though the brew I currently have on is the first of mine to contain sugar for a very long time.

20th Century English beer often did have a percentage of sugar, although as @Obadiah Boondoggle mentions, you can find some beers that did not add sugar. Ron Pattinson's book "AK!" is a fine collection of "English bitter" recipes ("AK" is 20th century "Bitter" in all but name - ignore those suggesting it's "Mild" such as "McMullen AK"). The AK I'm drinking at present is a fine example (fast finding its place as my "choice" session beer) and contains 8.5% sugar. Ron's Blog contains a wealth of British beer recipes too (Shut up about Barclay Perkins).

As for sugar: You can avoid the hassle of "inverting". I can't find a single reason for homebrewers to be inverting sugar except the fructose created caramelises much more easily (if you want to caramelise it; I'm beginning to find that's pointless too). I can find loads of b***s*** suggesting why it is "important" though. Your point about "Muscovado sugar" seems spot on as an avenue to explore. This is the (very recent) thread where the reason for "Invert Sugar" was beginning to dawn on me: Brewer's Invert Sugar (Part II)

 

[An Ankoù]

Thanks for that. What I've tended to do is mix fructose and glucose 50/50 dissolved in a little warm water and added to the boil, rather than physically inverting white table sugar. Would you advise the latter method? Presumably I could invert brown or muscavado using that method if I wanted monosaccharides with the colour (never tried that).

Regards, MSJ

That seems an expensive way of doing things. If you add the same weight of table sugar to the last ten minutes of the boil, it'll hydrolyse to 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
I agree with NB about the invert sugar. It really is needed for many of the recipes of Dave Line's era and it can't really be substituted with plain table sugar or any of the darker sugars or syrups. It's easy enough to make. I make mine up to the colour of number 2 invert, if you need something darker, you can add a bit of gravy browning. (my decades old bottle of sarsons gravy browning is clearly marked for home brewing on the label. In fact I've never used it in beer and rarely in gravy).

 

[peebee]

... It <invert sugar > really is needed for many of the recipes of Dave Line's era and it can't really be substituted with plain table sugar or any of the darker sugars or syrups. ...

Yes it can!

That's what I've been arguing about. Your statement poses an obvious question:

Why?

 

[An Ankoù]

Yes it can!

That's what I've been arguing about. Your statement poses an obvious question:

Why?

Why do we need to put it in? Because the brewers of the day bunged it in.
Why has it got to be invert instead of brown sugars? Don't know for sure @peebee, the colouring in both comes from carmelisation during the boiing process, but they just don't taste the same. I did a side by side tasting of some Tate and Lyle's Golden Syrup and some #1 invert I'd made and there was a distinct difference in the flavour- both lovely, but different. I've got a few light brown sugars ranging from the ubiquitous (here in France) cassonade to light muscovado and it doesn't taste the same as my #2 invert. I haven't made a #3 or #4 but I would predict they taste little like the various grades of molasses or black treacle. I would think that some of the rich flavours in the syrups and sugars come from impurities left over from the refining process and not just the caramel.
Another obvious question is: How much does it matter? In truth, again, I don't know as I've never done a side-by-side test of the resulting beers and I rarely use sugars anyway.
Did a Dave Line Carlsberg Special Brew with one of my protégés a number of weeks ago and we used Golden Syrup as per the recipe. I'm looking forward to seeing how this one turns out.
Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong on this one as making invert sugars is a right pain in the jacksie as far as I'm concerned.

 

[peebee]

Why do we need to put it in? Because the brewers of the day bunged it in. ...

I expect you to be running a bit faster than that to keep up with me (okay, so that's a figure of speech, I'm lucky to be walking so I can forget "running"). No, I entirely agree, "Lyle's Golden Syrup" (all floral and caramel flavours) tastes entirely different to Invert No.1. Our "Golden Granulated Sugar" from the UK Supermarkets comes closer? It's quite impossible to compare with Ragus No.1 Invert because of the enormous amount of dextrose they fill (seed) it with (20%). Lots of people say it tastes nice, but all that dextrose plays havoc with my fillings and the stuff is quite unbearable to me.

You need to switch to this thread Brewer's Invert Sugar (Part II) to catch up with where I'm at. As a taster: If you are talking about Ragus Invert Sugars, they are neither caramelised nor boiled, so all my work with Golden Syrup and Instantpot cookers was off the mark (but the end-product tasted good!).

And dealing with the colour leads to the question: Why (bother with all the sugar inverting hassle for homebrewing)? Which takes us back to the OP that "MSJ" started.


"Carlsberg Special Brew"? I hope you're going to serve that with the glass (bean can, whatever suitable container you lay your hands on) wrapped in brown paper against the prying eyes of passing Glaswegians? (Err, I did used to like the stuff though).

 

[An Ankoù]

I expect you to be running a bit faster than that to keep up with me (okay, so that's a figure of speech, I'm lucky to be walking so I can forget "running"). No, I entirely agree, "Lyle's Golden Syrup" (all floral and caramel flavours) tastes entirely different to Invert No.1. Our "Golden Granulated Sugar" from the UK Supermarkets comes closer? It's quite impossible to compare with Ragus No.1 Invert because of the enormous amount of dextrose they fill (seed) it with (20%). Lots of people say it tastes nice, but all that dextrose plays havoc with my fillings and the stuff is quite unbearable to me.

You need to switch to this thread Brewer's Invert Sugar (Part II) to catch up with where I'm at. As a taster: If you are talking about Ragus Invert Sugars, they are neither caramelised nor boiled, so all my work with Golden Syrup and Instantpot cookers was off the mark (but the end-product tasted good!).

And dealing with the colour leads to the question: Why (bother with all the sugar inverting hassle for homebrewing)? Which takes us back to the OP that "MSJ" started.


"Carlsberg Special Brew"? I hope you're going to serve that with the glass (bean can, whatever suitable container you lay your hands on) wrapped in brown paper against the prying eyes of passing Glaswegians? (Err, I did used to like the stuff though).

Not sure I want to catch up with you just yet until I'm convinced you're running in the right direction. Yeah, that thread is very interesting, but I wonder if early and mid 20th C. inverters of sugar used the methods now used by Ragus. But that's not the point. It's about flavour and whether a beer made with invert sugar tastes the same as beer made with incompletely refined sugars. I wonder, too, why a brewer would go to the expense of buying invert, when partially unrefined may have been cheaper.
Anyway. An experiment. I've just bottled a Whitbread Pale Ale made with my homemade invert #2 and if I like it, I'll make it again with Dillon's syrup, which is a pure syrup of 76% brown sugar in water and is much the same colour. Then we can do a side-by-side tasting.

Bottled Special Brew was delicious in the 80s. It had a delicate, almost floral aroma that I could never find in the canned stuff. I reckon the tinned was an inferior version made especially for winos.
Today, it's not worth drinking at all.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Thanks for that. What I've tended to do is mix fructose and glucose 50/50 dissolved in a little warm water and added to the boil, rather than physically inverting white table sugar. Would you advise the latter method? Presumably I could invert brown or muscavado using that method if I wanted monosaccharides with the colour (never tried that).

Miraculix over on HBT has a quick n dirty method for making invert in parallel with brewday :
calculate the amount of sugar you need and use raw cane sugar (not the really dark one, only slightly brown-ish). Take that, some water to dissolve it and a slice of lemon without skin or pith, throw it all in a pot and boil that as long as you mash plus boil the wort. Keep adding a bit of water of it gets too thick and don't burn it. You can also place it in the oven, once it's boiling. Remove the lemon after about one hour.

The liquid will darken in colour after some time and will develop interesting tastes. Throw it in at the end of the boil.

Not very scientific, not fancy-shmancy, but also no additional time needed and it gets you there

He's done some more detailed experiments in this thread, he thinks starting with dark sugar is a mistake, you get the good flavours from light sugar and more cooking time :
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/forgo-crystal-and-use-only-invert.694075/
Just generally, there's a fair bit of discussion on HBT about various ways of making invert, but golden syrup is a reasonable hack for #1 if you can't be bothered. You can add small amounts of treacle (like 3% for #3) to approximate darker inverts, per Kristen England's method.

 

[peebee]

... there's a fair bit of discussion on HBT about various ways of making invert, but golden syrup is a reasonable hack for #1 if you can't be bothered. You can add small amounts of treacle (like 3% for #3) to approximate darker inverts, per Kristen England's method.

Ha, you can't link Home Brewing UK Website on this forum for the usual long-standing (boring) reason. I did that only recently! No loss, that thread does have interesting snippets, but also dangerous ones for the ill-informed (like adding water, however "small" quantities, to sugar syrup boiling at temperatures well over 100°C ... it also gets very confused about when to add acid, when not to, neutralising acid with lime and even lye , whether inverting, whether caramelising sucrose or invert, etc., etc.).

I also ripped up that HBT thread on a thread (on this forum) that I have linked in this thread. Contains all the usual nonsense about caramelising sugars and "Maillard reactions"; both capable of producing interesting flavours, but neither are encouraged in historical "invert sugar" (and that includes Ragus invert sugars).

Golden Syrup isn't a reasonable hack for #1 Invert because some people can taste it (caramelised flavours) and don't like it. 19-20th Century No.1 Invert has no similar caramelised flavours. (I do use Golden Syrup and don't get the distaste ... but I must believe those that do).

That about small amounts of treacle to approximate darker inverts is true, but it approximates a hell of a lot closer than the crazed "caramelising" methods.


Sorry, don't normally criticise you 'cos you're a valuable source of information. But you've caught me mid-rant about this "Invert Sugar" carry-on, and I'm ranting 'cos I've been misled by the misinformation surrounding it! If I can sway your thinking about "Invert Sugar", I can sway many more people through you

But (if I still have your attention?) a question I would like answering about inverting sucrose for homebrewing is ... why?

 

[peebee]

Not sure I want to catch up with you just yet until I'm convinced you're running in the right direction. Yeah, that thread is very interesting, but I wonder if early and mid 20th C. inverters of sugar used the methods now used by Ragus. ...

At the time (1928) Ragus formed to fill a vacuum of refiners, especially ones supplying the brewing industry (read their history in >this<). But some brewers would be inverting their own sugar and they would no doubt be following the Victorian methodology (like Ragus were to, but most likely without the dextrose "filler"). E.g: The Preparation of Invert Sugar in the Brewery - Baker - 1902 - Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing - Wiley Online Library.

... But that's not the point. It's about flavour and whether a beer made with invert sugar tastes the same as beer made with incompletely refined sugars. I wonder, too, why a brewer would go to the expense of buying invert, when partially unrefined may have been cheaper. ...

There were beliefs that inverting prevented the yeast strain from deteriorating. There may have been other beliefs too, like in HB today. Right or wrong . Invert Sugars had their "unrefined" versions too; it's what No.2, No.3, etc. stood for. The numbers appear to have been redeployed to mean only colour. (To quote Ron Pattinson's - public - reply to me about the changing meaning of the numbers "they're still different <beep> colours" ).