When Is An Ag No Longer An Ag?

[zebba]

I've done what I claim as 2 "AG" brews. The second is AG by any definition - the only sugar that wasn't extracted from a mash was the dex used to prime the bottles. The first though... Well, I say it was AG, and to my heart it is an AG, but technically, I padded it out with some LDME.

So, where is the line drawn? I don't think anyone is going to be overly purist and argue that dex for bottle priming is the cheats way out (prove me wrong though!), but how much in the way of adjuncts pushes something from AG to partial?

Some hypotheticals:
1. Poor efficiency.
So you thought you could hit 75%, but you came out with 65%. So you add some LDME to get you up to a reasonable OG. AG/Partial?

2. Insufficient equipment (1)
You're doing a regular strength brew, but can only hit 14 litres cause your pot is too small. You add a kilo or so of LDME to pad it out to a respectable batch size. AG/Partial?

3. Insufficient equipment (2)
You want to do a "big" beer, but only really are able to efficiently mash a "normal" beers worth of grain. So you mash it a little lower, then add a 20 points to the OG through use of LDME. AG/Partial?

4. Belgian (1)
Is candi sugar use still AG? Am I being silly now? AG/Partial?

5. Belgian (2)
You think that candi sugar is for suckers and use raw/brown/regular cane sugar. Blasphemy! AG/Partial?

NOTE: The hypotheticals are just there to get discussion going.
OTHER NOTE: LDME = LDME, DDME, DME, LME, etc, etc, etc... Any unhopped "extract"

What are peoples thoughts? Is there room for LDME in AG brewing? Where is the line drawn?

I look forward to the replies...

FWIW, a wise man once said to me that if you don't tell people there is LDME in it, then it's an AG batch. I've chosen to live by that for most circumstances...

 

[Adamt]

AG is a shitty term, it sounds a little elitist to some people and is technically not true if you put a grain of sugar/extract in. I personally use "mash brew" or "full mash", which to me describes a beer in which a large mash was used to provide a majority of the sugars for the wort.

Anyway... I would call 1, 4 and 5 are "full mash"/AG and 2 and 3 are partials, the reason being in 1 only a small portion of extract is added, and for 4, 5, well... you can't get candi sugar out of a grain in the mash.

 

[brettprevans]

IMO its not AG if its got more than 20% of the base being something other than grain.
adjuncts i recon anything more than 20%. ie sugar, corn etc are all adjunbcts and unlikely to make up more than 20% of the entire bill. its contributing something to the beer thats not just fermentable sugar. hence my distinguishment between 'base' and 'adjunct'.

my 20sec, 2c worth of thought


good question to pose. although i have a feeling it might have been covered somewhere else previously.

 

[raven19]

Interesting question.

Imo, I would say if you have mashed grains for a significant part of batch then it is in AG territory.

But there may be an official ruling elsewhere on this...

 

[katzke]

Well if you want to get technical then any beer that has ingredients other then water, grain, hops, and yeast is not a all grain beer. Does not matter to me what the grain is and because extract is made with grain that would qualify as a all grain beer.

For home brewing if you intended to make a beer with the base as do-it-yourself mashed grain and you add other sources of fermentables then it is an all grain brew.

A partial is a brew that you intend to add extract as part of the recipe.

I think the rest is easy. Just in case an extract brew is one that you intend to use extract (can include specialty grains that are not mashed) and you put the ingredients together yourself. A kit brew is one that someone else did all the figuring and work for you.

Least that is the way I think of it when talking to brewers.

Oh and 1, 4, and 5 I would consider all grain. The others, 2 and 3, would be partials.

 

[Bribie G]

I make two main styles of beer, UK Bitters and Aussie style lagers (although some of them are 'fake' lagers using US-05). Both styles, historically, contain extra sugars and in the case of UK Bitters and Milds (originally called running beers) they have only existed since the beginning of the 20th century and have always been made with sugar or grain adjuncts such as rice and maize, within reasonable limits. It was to do with the malt taxes, the higher nitrogen malts that became common after the adoption of artificial fertilisers in the 19th century, and other perfectly sound reasons.

My trusty 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica discusses as follows: (skip this if you prefer)

It has been contended, and apparently with much reason, that if the use of substitutes were prohibited this would not lead to an increased use of domestic barley, inasmuch as the supply of home barley suitable for malting purposes is of a limited nature. A return to the policy of "malt and hops only" would therefore lead to an increased use of foreign barley, and to a diminution in the demand for home barley, inasmuch as sugar and prepared cereals, containing as they do less nitrogen, &c. than even the well-cured, sun-dried foreign barleys, are better diluents than the latter. At the same time, it is an undoubted fact that an excessive use of substitutes leads to the production of beer of poor quality. The better class of brewer rarely uses more than 15-20%, knowing that beyond that point the loss of flavour and quality will in the long run become a more serious item than any increased profits which he might temporarily gain.



With the introduction of refrigeration in Australia, most beer production swung to lagers and they had to be cold and light bodied because the majority of beer was slammed down as fast as possible during the heat of the afternoon, at the six o'clock swill that existed in many states until the late 60s. So they used a huge whack of sugar to produce as much alcohol using as little grain as possible. Apart from the German reinheitsgebot lands, many if not most Euro beers contain sugars and adjuncts, even countries such as Austria where you would imagine beers to be very 'historical' and 'pure' along German lines.

In the USA with the introduction of Pilsener style beers by Anheuser Busch etc, they had to use up to 60 percent adjuncts "boiler mash" to even get a clear beer out of the American six row barley although you could call them all grain, because they were all grain by definition. So it's perhaps a bit ironic that the 'all malt' mantra is preached by USA microbrew and home brewers. They even bring out the sharpened stakes and garlic wreaths when they hear 'maize' or 'sugar' mentioned at all. However these new brewers have only been around since the 1970s and personally I don't like American ales, they all taste a bit like trough lollies to me.. personal taste of course, many would disagree.

Me, I'll stick with tradition and continue to use sugars and adjuncts where appropriate and would class myself as a 'grain brewer' and not 'all grain'. For example I regularly put 250g of maize in a UK bitter, or 300g white sugar in the kettle. Aussie lagers I'll use up to 750 of cane sugar. Edit: and of course da ricez B)

 

[PostModern]

Semantics. All semantics. 100% malt is but one way to make a mash beer. Does it matter?

 

[bum]

If the OP is interested - yes. No one is trying to set labels in stone here.

 

[bcp]

IMO its not AG if its got more than 20% of the base being something other than grain.
adjuncts i recon anything more than 20%. ie sugar, corn etc are all adjunbcts and unlikely to make up more than 20% of the entire bill. its contributing something to the beer thats not just fermentable sugar. hence my distinguishment between 'base' and 'adjunct'.

my 20sec, 2c worth of thought


good question to pose. although i have a feeling it might have been covered somewhere else previously.

I like this. So if you come in at 20.3% because you had to add DME, then steep some grain in a coffee cup, tip it in, and hey presto! 19.9% - so it's all grain.

Sorry. Just being flippant - i do agree it's about what your base malt is.

And admitting that 'all grain' is term with limitations, because it always works better with water, hops and... Ja der bierhefe - the yeast when we discover it... and anything else the belgians and everyone else decided to throw in...

 

[zebba]

If the OP is interested - yes. No one is trying to set labels in stone here.

Semantics. All semantics. 100% malt is but one way to make a mash beer. Does it matter?

Hehe.

The thread was started for two reasons:
1. Lols
2. I thought the discussion could be interesting.

I don't actually care about the answer, I just wanted to hear peoples thoughts as I expected there to be some funny ones and some interesting ones. There has already been some interesting ones (Bribies EB 1911 post, for example), so it's not been a totally wasted effort

 

[AndrewQLD]

Hehe.

The thread was started for two reasons:
1. Lols
2. I thought the discussion could be interesting.

I don't actually care about the answer, I just wanted to hear peoples thoughts as I expected there to be some funny ones and some interesting ones. There has already been some interesting ones (Bribies EB 1911 post, for example), so it's not been a totally wasted effort

So you started a thread just for laughs and you don't care about the answer, thanks for wasting our time.
Some people post responses in order to try and help others, not just for the amusement of the OP, and they go to a bit of effort as well, for example BribieG as you pointed out, maybe you should think about that before you try to get your afternoon chuckles hey?

Andrew

 

[drsmurto]

Hehe.

The thread was started for two reasons:
1. Lols
2. I thought the discussion could be interesting.

I don't actually care about the answer, I just wanted to hear peoples thoughts as I expected there to be some funny ones and some interesting ones. There has already been some interesting ones (Bribies EB 1911 post, for example), so it's not been a totally wasted effort

Fairly close to the definition of a troll.......

 

[zebba]

AndrewQLD and DrSmurto,

Perhaps literacy is a problem. I never said it was "Just for LOL's" - I said that I thought some of the replies would be funny, hopefully intentionally. I also said that I thought some of the replies would be interesting. Perhaps you missed point number two AndrewQLD?

Maybe some clarification is in order. When I say "I don't care about the answer" I mean that I don't care if someone thinks that 2grams of LDME means it is no longer true "AG" and is now a partial. I DO care about their reasoning beind it though.

Look at the very first post. I put a note in there that says the hypotheticals are purely there to start discussion. That means that I don't want people to post replies like:

1: AG
2: Partial
3: AG
4: AG
5: OMG you can't sub sugar for candi sugar!!!!

It means that I want people to discuss this. When is something no longer AG? When the bulk of fermentables become extract? When the benefits of AG (complexity, fresh flavour, lack of "twang", ultimate control over the recipe, etc) are no longer realised?

Next time, instead of calling troll, try a bit harder. All you've done is expose yourselves as trolls. This is not another homebrewer/craftbrewer thread. You would do well to ditch the closed minded, elitist attitudes and assume positive motives until proven otherwise.

 

[Scruffy]

Oh dear.

 

[glaab]

now were getting into LOL territory :icon_cheers:

 

[antains]

now were getting into LOL territory :icon_cheers:

It's LULZ territory.

 

[hazard]

IMO its not AG if its got more than 20% of the base being something other than grain.
adjuncts i recon anything more than 20%. ie sugar, corn etc are all adjunbcts and unlikely to make up more than 20% of the entire bill. its contributing something to the beer thats not just fermentable sugar. hence my distinguishment between 'base' and 'adjunct'.

my 20sec, 2c worth of thought


good question to pose. although i have a feeling it might have been covered somewhere else previously.

So I think this is saying that my belgian wit beer is NOT AG because it contains 50% adjuncts. My recipe is, of course, 50% barley malt, 45% unmalted wheat, 5% rolled oats. However I mash them all together in the same tun so I'll call it AG.

I think the issue here is - sugar does not need conversion, and is added to the kettle, not the mash tun. Many other adjuncts (raw wheat, rolled oats, flaked corn etc) require conversion and go into the mash. Not quite right to consider sugar and corn as comparable adjuncts.

 

[Smashin]

Some hypotheticals:
1. Poor efficiency.
So you thought you could hit 75%, but you came out with 65%. So you add some LDME to get you up to a reasonable OG. AG/Partial?

2. Insufficient equipment (1)
You're doing a regular strength brew, but can only hit 14 litres cause your pot is too small. You add a kilo or so of LDME to pad it out to a respectable batch size. AG/Partial?

3. Insufficient equipment (2)
You want to do a "big" beer, but only really are able to efficiently mash a "normal" beers worth of grain. So you mash it a little lower, then add a 20 points to the OG through use of LDME. AG/Partial?

4. Belgian (1)
Is candi sugar use still AG? Am I being silly now? AG/Partial?

5. Belgian (2)
You think that candi sugar is for suckers and use raw/brown/regular cane sugar. Blasphemy! AG/Partial?

In my book 1-3 is partial full stop.

4. - AG

5. - AG as belgian brewers do use these sugars also.

I spose the point that if they style guidelines require x% as a particular sugar then you could then declare it as AG if the remaining sugars come from mashing grain. Not to say that joe blow can just declare to have their own style that requires sugar,dme etc Another example of an acepted style is sparking ale which requires the sugar addition for the cider flavor profile. Personally I don't have an issue with priming sugars being used as this is to serve a different purpose and the quantities are insignificant to the flavor profile. I must admit I do use ldme for my starters and while i accept my brews as AG in the back of my mine i do feel a bit naughty and continue to do this only coz i can't be bothered (yet).

Each to their own, i don't think it is about being elitist but i personally do take pride in claiming AG status.

 

[brettprevans]

So I think this is saying that my belgian wit beer is NOT AG because it contains 50% adjuncts. My recipe is, of course, 50% barley malt, 45% unmalted wheat, 5% rolled oats. However I mash them all together in the same tun so I'll call it AG.

I think the issue here is - sugar does not need conversion, and is added to the kettle, not the mash tun. Many other adjuncts (raw wheat, rolled oats, flaked corn etc) require conversion and go into the mash. Not quite right to consider sugar and corn as comparable adjuncts.

yes i consider yours to be AG.

1. the % were slightly random and i did say i put about 20sec worth of thought in
2. i dont classify wheat as an adjunct. its a base as far as im concerned. its a grain. thus AG.

 

[haysie]

So you started a thread just for laughs and you don't care about the answer, thanks for wasting our time.
Some people post responses in order to try and help others, not just for the amusement of the OP, and they go to a bit of effort as well, for example BribieG as you pointed out, maybe you should think about that before you try to get your afternoon chuckles hey?

Andrew

Andrew, have a nanny nap in the afternoon, you obviously need it.