PeeBee's Brewday - Low Alcohol Beer

[uDicko]

I am loving this hop ball floaty idea. I'm going to copy. Genius

 

[peebee]

As my last "experiment" resulted in higher than anticipated FG, it countered to some extent the higher than anticipated OG. So my postponed "side-by-side" comparison ("hot mash" vs "cold mash") can be resurrected.

I'll have to bump up the grain for the hot mash to keep things about the same, but can keep the mash to 72C (rather then go back to 74C) and the hopping the same (which is a little lower than I'd calculated as optimum because of the higher OG and attenuation). So the next brew (to be made as soon as a suitable keg is available) will be:

AFON CEIDIOG (hot mash) 18L (Pale Ale)

23L Water (Soft acid moorland, about 59ppm sulphate) chloride added (magnesium and calcium chloride), and sodium metabisulphite to eliminate chlorine. Adjusted to achieve Bru'n Water's "yellow full" profile.

Hot mash @ 72C, 45 minutes
0.65kg Wheat Malt (Crisp, 3 EBC)
0.65kg Light Munich Malt (Crisp, 22 EBC)
0.25kg Crystal Malt (Crisp, 150 EBC)
0.25kg Cara Malt (Crisp, 30 EBC)
"Mash out" 78C, 5 minutes

Boil for 30 minutes (no boil hops).

23g Brook House Cobb Goldings (pellets, zero minute, steep 30 minutes at 80C, calculate 3.2 IBU)

1/2pkt Safbrew Ale (Fermentis #S-33)

20g Brook House Cobb Goldings (pellets, 4 days dry hop)

7ml NBS Brausol Special (finings)


That should keep things about the same, other than the cold mash step. The conclusion I'm basing it on (but this is only one comparison) is cold mashing needs 3x the base malt, not 4x as specified in the Briess article.

 

[peebee]

There's a bit in my last post that might cause puzzlement; "... needs 3x the base malt, not 4x as specified in the Briess article … ". So, in the Briess article there is:

Cold Extraction Applications
Low Alcohol Beer

• The wort obtained from cold extracted mashing yields a wort that appears to have a disproportionately large quantity of the proteins that are responsible for good head retention and mouthfeel. Employing a cold extraction method to a standard 1.050 gravity recipe will result in a 1- 1.5% ABV beer with a full mouthfeel and good head retention.
• When formulating low alcohol beer by this method one should consider that there is very little sweetness due to low residual dextrin content, and that it will be necessary to lower the level of hop bittering to achieve balance.

Briess are suggesting a grain bill for a 4.5 to 5% ABV brew (1.050) will come out at 1 to 1.5% ABV, or about 1/4 strength. But I'm suggesting 1/3 strength is nearer truth. And here we have, what I think is misleading, the suggestion there will be "low residual dextrin content": Note there is no quantifying "low", and I believe by mashing the "conversion" stage at high temperatures (72-75C; perhaps even 76-77C?) you will still achieve "high residual dextrin content", especially if caramel/crystal malts are held back until this "conversion" stage. If I'm wrong in that belief, how else might I be achieving an attenuation of only 60%?

What is without doubt is these cold extractions will extract virtually no beta-glucans, but the obvious increase in protein extraction should cover that (mouthfeel). The problem being is these high protein extractions need handling carefully because they can be very hazardous (burnt flavours, even burnt-out elements!).

The bit of Briess article which I think needs more emphasis when trying to develop practical methods from this cold mashing is:

Conversion: Contrary to traditional brewing the conversion process happens after the solid portion has been removed from the liquid.

• The conversion is necessary to reduce unconverted starch to soluble carbohydrates.
• Conversion can be accomplish with cold extracted wort alone or in the presence of additional malts/grains, in which case this secondary mash will need to be lautered.

Again, there is no quantifying "unconverted starch", but it might be assumed that carbohydrates (starch and sugars) make up nearly all of "total solids", apart from a bit of protein, which is measured as 25% for cold mashing compared to what they term as "congress" wort ("normal" wort I'll presume).

 

[peebee]

The "hot mash" version is weighed out, ready to go, but its going to be a few weeks before I can arrange a side-by-side comparison. Meanwhile I've still got some of the "Rye IPA" left from way back in January. It's hot-mashed, about the same strength (1.4% ABV), about same temperature (6-7C) and same carbonation (about 7-8PSI), so I'll go for that in the meantime.

Starting with the "Rye IPA":

Last glass from the keg; shame 'cos it's got a bit murky and was actually very clear last week. 72% rye malt, 28% oat malt, hot mashed. It came out a bit dark (for a "pale ale") because the rye malt was 25EBC not <10 as expected. Head as might be expected from a wheat beer. The beer was hopped to 20 IBU with Mosaic and Hallertau Blanc, all late ("whirlpool", zero minute) or dry hops (split 50/50). Despite high hop rate (for low-alcohol beer) the bitterness has become subdued after keeping so long. Good hop aroma (flowery) even after this time, hop flavour was initially grapefruit, but after the first mouthful fairly non-descript. Overall the flavour is generally light but good body and mouthfeel, about what might be expected from a 3-4% ABV beer. Very light "spiciness", the "trademark" of rye malt apparently but hadn't really noticed it before (a subdued cabbage/vegetable-like spiciness, not an aromatic or hot one). There is a creaminess that I had attributed to rye malt, but as I'm noticing the creaminess in low-alcohol beers not containing rye I'll have to rethink that.

And the "cold mashed" beer:

Immediately, this is obviously much darker. That comes from the Munich malt (about 22 EBC) and crystal malt. But 50% of the grain bill is very light wheat malt and "caramalt". Underdone hop bitterness (3.5 EBU, all whirlpool) because this is 3x stronger than intended. Hop bitterness a background presence and perhaps a bit low to be considered as "balancing". No hop flavour noticeable. [EDIT: It's translucent, not clear but not murky either. I guess typical of a protein "haze"? "Translucent" suggests the "vegan" finings actually worked]. But then comes the real differences … !

Nose reminiscent of a sugary/caramelly sweet shop. Very solid aroma with distinct grainy overtones (nearly, but not quite, "raw" - post boil - grainy flavours). Aroma settles to crystal malt hints if glass left a while undisturbed. A real mouthful! More so than a 1.050 OG beer. Fruit gums, but that more from the gelatine like mouthfeel. [EDIT: Contrary to the "sweet" nose, the flavour is quite dry]. It's not like a weak beer, but it's not like a strong beer either, it is something else …


Enough! I want me dinner. I'll write up some conclusions on how I think best to use this "beer" in Part Two.

 

[peebee]

Over time the "sweet" flavours, aromas and what-evers, are moderating a bit. Or else I'm getting too used to them? It seems likely that many of these "fruit-gum" "elements" have their origin in the crystal malt which is absent in the "Rye NEIPA", but how those "elements" come over is very much a feature of beer made by a "cold mash" (NOTE: the crystal malt was hot mashed, not included in the cold mash).

Sorry about the extra little edits to that last post, but I don't always interpret my notes as thoroughly as I should first time around!

 

[peebee]

Here … I was supposed to write up "Part 2". I've only noticed it is still missing because I've started making the "hot-mash" comparison brew so I was getting some background. So (a brief … ):

PART 2.
The "cold mashing" doesn't suggest a route to a "Big Drop" clone. The results are too radically different. But for me I needn't look further because it might not make for a "clone", but it does make for a very good filler-in for alcohol exemption days … except: It's turned out a bit alcoholic (1.4% ABV) to be considered properly low alcohol, and not everyone is going to like the result (for whatever reason they might have, but the flavours are too "different" to suit everyone). So I'll continue to strive for the original goal and keep expanding my repertoire of recipes and techniques. In particular:

The "cold mashing" needs work to predictably achieve the desired "low-alcohol" outcome.

The procedures need work to avoid the "burn" hazard - this may turn out to be just the reduction of grain to meet the first requirement.

Better develop the "hybrid" method to cover a wider range of "styles" and tastes.

Revert to 74C conventional mash step, or higher (75-77C?), to try to prevent increase in fermentability of wort. Heating cold extract to conventional mash temperature suspected of creating higher fermentability during time at <70C.


The flavour are holding up well, so a future comparison (hot vs. cold mash) is well in order. The "fruit-gum" description still fits, although "wine-gum" would be a better comparison but under the circumstances ("low-alcohol") that may be a little "off"?

Today is one of my designated "abstention days" so I'll be guzzling it later.

 

[Dexter101]

I might have to try this soon for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the wife is pregnant and has been enjoying having beer she can drink (tried a few different ones and when chilled have enjoyed them all).

The other reason is this summer on so many occasions I fancied a beer in a situation that would be unsuitable (driving) or frowned upon (work). I think having a low alcohol beer with lunch at work would make the day a little better.

 

[peebee]

Just go careful with that "cold-mash" method! I worry that I might of started an epidemic of burnt out elements! But to get the ABV <1% will need less grain than I used, and the proportion of grain might be increased in the "hot-mash" stage, additional grain husks even (to catch protein coming out of solution), to further mitigate the burning risk.

I'm thinking maybe the "cold mash" method is emphasising the "wine-gum" nature of the beer, with much of the flavour coming from crystal malt? So perhaps I'll try higher proportions of base barley malt (not protein-rich wheat malt) in the next "cold mash"? May be not "Munich" to get the colour down?

Have fun! I'm always encouraging folk to post their experiences of low-alcohol brewing, because it only makes up a small proportion of the beer I brew which makes for slow experimentation (my "cold mashing" was the result of someone discussing it on one of my threads).

 

[peebee]

Hop rates was still causing me a little trouble (too high) despite carefully applying the "IBU/SG" ratio trick (SG as whole units such that 1.010 = 10, or "GU"; Gravity Units). It occurred to me that this "ratio" is based on an assumed attenuation, probably 75%, and these low-alcohol beers will be a lot less than that (under 30% for my last brew). So I'm going to experiment with "normalising" the SG for this ratio. So that will be (SG-FG)/3*4, only assuming what the SG and FG will be and that attenuation of 75% will be used to "normalise" the SG.

So my last brew had a IBU/SG (BU/GU) ratio of 0.394, which would be "low", but "normalised" it would be: 5.9IBU / (SG12-FG09)/3*4 = 1.475. The math is probably dodgy, but 1.475 would certainly be more bitter than I was expecting.

Dodgy? This ratio figure is only a guide at the best of times. When applied to these low-alcohol formulations the figures start losing their resolution so can start creating some pretty extreme results. So I come along with my "normalising" idea to make these extreme results perhaps a little more useful? But if the ratio was a guide before, it's a guide "plus some" when "normalised" for these recipes. Don't get hung up on these calculations, remember they are only (hopefully) a guide.

Looks like I was well behind with this stuff. This article goes into the subject a little more thoroughly: https://learn.kegerator.com/how-to-calculate-perceived-bitterness/

Waffle more than I do! But the final result (perceived bitterness) suggests a better calculation than I was trying to present. I'll try and make something of it and get back.

 

[peebee]

I'm now drinking both "cold mash" and "hot mash" versions of the same beer - I will get around to publishing the results soon; needless to say they are both very different from each other but do share certain similarities. I'm concluding he "cold mash" method is particularly suited to "contemporary" hoppy styles whereas more traditional styles (like a "Big Drop Pale Ale" clone) best stick with the "hot mash" method (for which the "perceived bitterness" approach also seems important).

 

[thorners]

Hi Peebee, after years of following this forum I've created an account to hear whether you've progressed any further with your sub-1% brews?
I'm planning my first very low ABV brew tomorrow, half size batch, aiming for 0.5% with rye, munich and vienna. I'll post an update in case anyone's interested.

 

[peebee]

Hi Peebee, after years of following this forum I've created an account to hear whether you've progressed any further with your sub-1% brews?
I'm planning my first very low ABV brew tomorrow, half size batch, aiming for 0.5% with rye, munich and vienna. I'll post an update in case anyone's interested.

Hi @thorners. I'll be kicking off again before March is out (I hope so, 'cos I suspect my current "abstention beer" will run out next time I touch the tap). It will be a "cold extract" brew using pale malt as I'm counting on a 0.5% formulation will not have some of the "notable characteristics" of my former 1.5% cold extract brew. I reckon cold mashed/extracted pale malt should introduce more flavour than Munich malt 'cos I can use 3x the quantity in a cold extract*.
Cheers


[EDIT: *Not forgetting I could use 3x as much cold extracted Munich malt too. Best of both worlds?]

 

[foxy]

Hi Peebee, after years of following this forum I've created an account to hear whether you've progressed any further with your sub-1% brews?
I'm planning my first very low ABV brew tomorrow, half size batch, aiming for 0.5% with rye, munich and vienna. I'll post an update in case anyone's interested.

If you want to make a zero alcohol beer you could use Saccharomyces Ludwigii it will ferment out your wort without making alcohol. Pretty sure that's what Carlton United Brewery use for their non alcohol beer.

 

[prog99]

Tried this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharomyces_chevalieri
Sold by Fermentis as La-01

 

[thorners]

Tried this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharomyces_chevalieri
Sold by Fermentis as La-01

Very interesting @foxy & @prog99 - will keep in mind for next low abv brew!

 

[thorners]

Recipe I went with:
11L mash
350g Rye Malt
175g Munich
175g Vienna
8g Yellow Sub @ flameout
OG 1.015

Meant to pitch S-33 but pitched S-04 in error, oh well it'll be an interesting first attempt anyway.
Dry hopped with 40g Yellow Sub (never tried this hop before, I'll post updates)

Will probably keg into my 9L corny at the weekend, will post back results.

 

[thorners]

Forgot to mention that I mashed at 75 degrees.

Finished at 1.009 giving 0.8%

Anyway after a week carbonating here's a pic:

Unfortunately taste wise I'm getting a mouthful of cooked corn, the first time I've had DMS in a homebrew after 5 years all grain brewing. May have been the 25 min boil, or I might have been unlucky with an infection.

I think a pleasant beer is hiding beneath that, and the Yellow Sub hops seem to nicely complement a low ABV beer, the only way to find out is a rebrew! Same hops next but different grain bill and yeast, may try that cold mashing.

I'll keep you posted.

 

[rb982]

Hi All,

I am also interested in making a low/non alcoholic brew. I am going to attempt the boil method and see what happens.

I plan to make my brew in the normal way until I would normally bottle. Instead of bottling I will boil the entire brew for a few hours, let it cool, check the gravity, add priming sugar and bottle. I understand from a few posts here that this will reduce the taste/quality of my brew but as a test to see if I can reduce the alcohol content, I am willing to give it a go.

So my questions are; will my method work? How long should I boil for? Does anyone have any tips for my plan?

Many thanks!

 

[prog99]

Hi All,

I am also interested in making a low/non alcoholic brew. I am going to attempt the boil method and see what happens.

I plan to make my brew in the normal way until I would normally bottle. Instead of bottling I will boil the entire brew for a few hours, let it cool, check the gravity, add priming sugar and bottle. I understand from a few posts here that this will reduce the taste/quality of my brew but as a test to see if I can reduce the alcohol content, I am willing to give it a go.

So my questions are; will my method work? How long should I boil for? Does anyone have any tips for my plan?

Many thanks!

Boiling post fermentation will kill off the yeast thus priming will achieve nothing!

 

[Sadfield]

Instead of bottling I will boil the entire brew for a few hours, let it cool, check the gravity, add priming sugar and bottle.

You'll need to add yeast.