Thoughts On Efficiency And Flavour.

[Thirsty Boy]

Early this morning I was writing a PM about getting good flavour in low alcohol beer.. and the thought occurred to me that efficiency itself, is probably bad for flavour.

We all know that assuming its not horribly low - then the search for efficiecny isn't a massive priority in making good beer. BUT - the unspoken assumption is that if you can get it - higher efficiency is better. I'm not so sure.

I'm not even talking about the dangers of oversparging, tannins, hemicelluloses etc etc. I'm just talking about plain old flavour. Where does a great proportion of your beer's flavour come from?? The base malt of course. After water, the second biggest ingredient.

And if you have a really high efficiency - you use a lot less of it.

In my system, I can, with a bit of mucking about, get about 80% into the kettle - But if I were for instance to make a corny full of beer at 70% instead - I would use 15+% more malt to get the same gravity. Its not more flavour you are getting at higher efficiency, its more extract. So 15% more grain in the mash tun at lower efficiency should equate to a beer of the same gravity - but with more malt flavour.

I don't need to save money on brewing, I want to make the best most flavourful beer I can and cost is basically irellevant - if it gets me even 5 or 10 percent increase in the malt character of my beer -- I am seriously considering tweaking my system and method to drop my efficiency down to 65-70% I dont think I can get it much lower than that and still get my pre-boil volume.

Valid thoughts or am I raving??

Thirsty

 

[warrenlw63]

Thirsty

Sounds like a precursor to "No Sparge Brewing". It's been spoken about before. Those who've tried it swear by the increased malt character. Can't speak from any experience having not tried it though.

Warren -

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Thirsty

Sounds like a precursor to "No Sparge Brewing". It's been spoken about before. Those who've tried it swear by the increased malt character. Can't speak from any experience having not tried it though.

Warren -

I already no-sparge just cause its easier.... actually not quite sure how to go about dropping the efficiency much more without just leaving wort behind behind.

 

[Stuster]

Hold on, you get 80% efficiency with no sparge. Whatchutalkinabout, TB? :blink:

Can you run us through your process briefly?

 

[newguy]

I dunno. Think about a standard gravity wort, 1.050 OG or so. Does it matter how much malt was in the mash tun? If I make a 1.050 beer and hit my usual 85% and someone else makes the same 1.050 beer but gets 70%, we still have the same amount of dissolved solids in our 1.050 worts, regardless of how we each arrived at the same gravity.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Hold on, you get 80% efficiency with no sparge. Whatchutalkinabout, TB? :blink:

Can you run us through your process briefly?

Nah - I can squish it up to around 80% if do a standard two run-off batch sparge - With no sparge I am usually on about 75%

3-3.5:1 L:G - re-circulating mash (RIMS) - Mashout with enough water so that a single run-off will give me my kettle volume. More or less 75% into the kettle.


Newguy - My theory is that at 80% your dissolved solids will have a higher proportion of just straight up sugars than mine will from a 65% efficiency. More malt equalling more dissolved melanoidins etc etc.

Not sure if it actually works that way or not though - just speculating - its possible that by leaving behind 15% more of the sugars, you are also leaving behind 15% more of the flavour compounds. I just get a feeling that it isn't going to work that way. And it ties in with the idea that no-sparge brewers get "maltier" beers. I reckon (that if its true) its mainly because tehy simply have to use more malt, not because of some inherent feature of sparging that reduces malt flavours.

TB

 

[Pumpy]

Early this morning I was writing a PM about getting good flavour in low alcohol beer.. and the thought occurred to me that efficiency itself, is probably bad for flavour.

We all know that assuming its not horribly low - then the search for efficiecny isn't a massive priority in making good beer. BUT - the unspoken assumption is that if you can get it - higher efficiency is better. I'm not so sure.

I'm not even talking about the dangers of oversparging, tannins, hemicelluloses etc etc. I'm just talking about plain old flavour. Where does a great proportion of your beer's flavour come from?? The base malt of course. After water, the second biggest ingredient.

And if you have a really high efficiency - you use a lot less of it.

In my system, I can, with a bit of mucking about, get about 80% into the kettle - But if I were for instance to make a corny full of beer at 70% instead - I would use 15+% more malt to get the same gravity. Its not more flavour you are getting at higher efficiency, its more extract. So 15% more grain in the mash tun at lower efficiency should equate to a beer of the same gravity - but with more malt flavour.

I don't need to save money on brewing, I want to make the best most flavourful beer I can and cost is basically irellevant - if it gets me even 5 or 10 percent increase in the malt character of my beer -- I am seriously considering tweaking my system and method to drop my efficiency down to 65-70% I dont think I can get it much lower than that and still get my pre-boil volume.

Valid thoughts or am I raving??

Thirsty

Thirsty ,

I noticed Jamil Zainasheff only targets for 70% , I dont know if that is mainly to ensure his semi auto system does not get stuck and so a coarser mill helps the sparge .

He says that efficiency is noit everything and can rinse more tannings into the wort causing astringency .

Since gettiing my new mill I have gone from 75% to 85% which I was pleased about .

My sparge does slow at timesas it its quite fine , but I just stir it recirculate and offf again .

I am gradually using a coarse crush to get a lower efficciency with not much impact at this time ,I am just doing it gradually so I have some control .

I am usure what effect it will have on the resultant beer

Pumpy

 

[Stuster]

My experience is that this is what does happen, TB. I've done a number of parti-gyle batches which have given me a stronger and a weaker beer. My feeling is that the stronger beer is more malty than would be expected for that gravity, while the weaker one is less malty than I'd expect. But it's hard to be completely unbiased when that's what you are expecting anyway. Certainly, with the club brew we parti-gyled giving a Tripel and a light Belgian blonde, the Tripel that various people made did well in comps which may show something.

 

[MarkBastard]

I dunno. Think about a standard gravity wort, 1.050 OG or so. Does it matter how much malt was in the mash tun? If I make a 1.050 beer and hit my usual 85% and someone else makes the same 1.050 beer but gets 70%, we still have the same amount of dissolved solids in our 1.050 worts, regardless of how we each arrived at the same gravity.

That's what I was thinking.

Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about, this is all assumptions.

If you hit 85% efficiency or 60% efficiency, with the same result (1.050 gravity @ 25 litres), then you obviously used more grain on the 60% efficiency batch for the same litres of wort at the same gravity.

Now, what will the difference in the wort itself be? For it to be 'better' with the lower efficiency, you would think that there'd have to be evidence showing that the earlier extracted sugars taste better than the later extracted ones. I assume the mash process is hot water creating and extracting sugars from malted grain, ie first the enzymes convert the starches to sugars, and the process also involves washing these sugars out of the grains and into your wort. I'll assume also that the conversion part affects each bit of grain at roughly the same time.

How does efficiency come into this? Is it your efficiency of converting starches to sugars, or efficiency in washing these sugars off the grain, or both? Are the sugars that easily come off the grain better in taste than the more stubborn ones that take more vigerous sparging etc?

 

[Thirsty Boy]

That's what I was thinking.

Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about, this is all assumptions.

If you hit 85% efficiency or 60% efficiency, with the same result (1.050 gravity @ 25 litres), then you obviously used more grain on the 60% efficiency batch for the same litres of wort at the same gravity.

Now, what will the difference in the wort itself be? For it to be 'better' with the lower efficiency, you would think that there'd have to be evidence showing that the earlier extracted sugars taste better than the later extracted ones. I assume the mash process is hot water creating and extracting sugars from malted grain, ie first the enzymes convert the starches to sugars, and the process also involves washing these sugars out of the grains and into your wort. I'll assume also that the conversion part affects each bit of grain at roughly the same time.

How does efficiency come into this? Is it your efficiency of converting starches to sugars, or efficiency in washing these sugars off the grain, or both? Are the sugars that easily come off the grain better in taste than the more stubborn ones that take more vigerous sparging etc?

For the most part - the sugars themelves aren't the things that taste "malty" they either taste sweet or have very little flavour at all and contribute only to body and mouthfeel. But they are the major contributer to gravity. Malt flavour is mainly a product of melanoidins produced during kilning. So a more thorough sparge (being the thing responsible for higher efficiency) rinses out more sugars - but once its rinsed out the flavour compounds, thats it, there aren't any more - if you had to use more malt, there would be more. Or something like that.

I'm not insisting I am right here - I'm just debating from this side of the debate to see where it goes

TB

 

[newguy]

There's an easy way to prove or disprove your theory: make 2 batches, one after the other, same grain bill (with allowances for %) and make two identical worts. With one, pull out all your efficiency tricks and with the other go for a lower efficiency. Ferment both with the same yeast, pitched from the same starter flask. Do side by side tastings, blind tastings, etc, and also pay close attention to FG. If your theory is right, the FG from the least efficient preparation method should be higher in addition to being a clear tasting favourite.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

There's an easy way to prove or disprove your theory: make 2 batches, one after the other, same grain bill (with allowances for %) and make two identical worts. With one, pull out all your efficiency tricks and with the other go for a lower efficiency. Ferment both with the same yeast, pitched from the same starter flask. Do side by side tastings, blind tastings, etc, and also pay close attention to FG. If your theory is right, the FG from the least efficient preparation method should be higher in addition to being a clear tasting favourite.

Where's the fun in that??

Gathering evidence and proving things is just a mean spirited way of stifling a perfectly good debate

 

[Stuster]

Yeah, I bet he's one of those.....scientists.

 

[newguy]

Yeah, I bet he's one of those.....scientists.

What gave it away?

FWIW I'd be much more open to the idea of a spirited debate if we were doing said debate in person over several beers.

 

[jjeffrey]

My belief is that lower efficiencies give more maltiness, but not always- it depends on your mashing process, boiling process, chilling process and grain choice.

I agree that most maltiness is resultant from the formation of melanoidans.

The melanoidans, which are products of Maillard reactions between amino acids and sugars, and are time and temperature dependant. Above 90degrees, the rate shoots up but they can form down to 70degrees. They, are predominantly formed in the kilning process, but they are also formed in the boil (which is why it darkens), as well in your cube if you no chill (a lot slower, because lower temp, but there is lots of time). ALSO, melanoidans can be formed from complex carbohydrates (such as detrinx and starches) as well as simple sugars- in fact, there are far more reducing ends on complex sugars than simple ones, so more active melanoidan "branches" are formed.

My understanding is that simple sugars do not undergo Maillard reactions as readily as longer chained sugars (requires more energy), and that simple melanoidans are less organoleptically active, and some species can be eaten by the yeast.

You could surmise that if your efficiency is lower, the sugars in the wort will be longer and more complex: lower efficiency tends to be a result of less sugars being able to dissolve because it is locked up in a non-soluable form (ie more starch). You might get this if your crush was coarser, if the grain is plumper, the mash process is shorter, the diastatic enzyme strength is lower, or whatever- there are a host of scenarios. This would mean that there are more complex sugars and dextrins available (and starches) in your wort to form melanoidans later on in your process. Same goes for higher mashing temperatures, where less simple and more complex sugars are formed.

If you use highly modified malt, or do protein rests, you will also have more free amino acids available to react as well.

Rolling or hard boils would form more melanoidans, as would kettles with hotter flames/heated surfaces.

I'm only quoting my own logic here- it's not based on actually studies, take it with a grain of malt, but I think that you get the extra maltiness from lower efficiencies because there are more complex sugars (including starches) available to form tastey melanoidans.

jj.

 

[MarkBastard]

woah woah, slow down egg head!

 

[flattop]

Umm

what he said.....

 

[warra48]

I'm lost in most scientific explanations or experimentations. Granted, I'm not a scientist, but I did work with legal issues all my working life, so I can see an esoteric argument when it's there, and analyse it to death. I got sick of it, realised it was all just going around in circles, proving nothing except to achieve a pre-conceived and often biased outcome, so I retired. Now I brew my own beer, play golf, and grow vegetables.

I usually get 90% efficiency into the kettle, or better, and I'm perfectly happy with the beers I make.

For my money, and my taste, my beers are way ahead of just about anything I can buy at a reasonable price commercially. I don't really care whether I could achieve a smidgen more taste or character by using an extra kg of grain and dropping my efficiency a bit.

I just love my beers, and love having a couple of them each day.

Pretty simple really. Isn't that why we all brew our own beers?

 

[bradsbrew]

My belief is that lower efficiencies give more maltiness, but not always- it depends on your mashing process, boiling process, chilling process and grain choice.

I agree that most maltiness is resultant from the formation of melanoidans.

The melanoidans, which are products of Maillard reactions between amino acids and sugars, and are time and temperature dependant. Above 90degrees, the rate shoots up but they can form down to 70degrees. They, are predominantly formed in the kilning process, but they are also formed in the boil (which is why it darkens), as well in your cube if you no chill (a lot slower, because lower temp, but there is lots of time). ALSO, melanoidans can be formed from complex carbohydrates (such as detrinx and starches) as well as simple sugars- in fact, there are far more reducing ends on complex sugars than simple ones, so more active melanoidan "branches" are formed.

My understanding is that simple sugars do not undergo Maillard reactions as readily as longer chained sugars (requires more energy), and that simple melanoidans are less organoleptically active, and some species can be eaten by the yeast.

You could surmise that if your efficiency is lower, the sugars in the wort will be longer and more complex: lower efficiency tends to be a result of less sugars being able to dissolve because it is locked up in a non-soluable form (ie more starch). You might get this if your crush was coarser, if the grain is plumper, the mash process is shorter, the diastatic enzyme strength is lower, or whatever- there are a host of scenarios. This would mean that there are more complex sugars and dextrins available (and starches) in your wort to form melanoidans later on in your process. Same goes for higher mashing temperatures, where less simple and more complex sugars are formed.

If you use highly modified malt, or do protein rests, you will also have more free amino acids available to react as well.

Rolling or hard boils would form more melanoidans, as would kettles with hotter flames/heated surfaces.

I'm only quoting my own logic here- it's not based on actually studies, take it with a grain of malt, but I think that you get the extra maltiness from lower efficiencies because there are more complex sugars (including starches) available to form tastey melanoidans.

jj.

So when I no chill that will make my beer darker. Hmmm at least my brain registered that part :blink: .

Brad

 

[QldKev]

If Efficiency was the only factor of a good beer, they yes... we all know if you puch the efficiency too far about tanins; but what about of your are using things like rice which will bump up your brix reading????

Something that has not been understood is brix = disolved solids, not sugar... pol is sugar..... look up the purity rule for the sugar industry, hopefully this will clean up some ideas... (or at least sweeten them)


QldKev