• Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
    Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.

Fermentability

PeeBee

Brewer
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Location
North Wales, UK
For calculating starting gravity the program uses the ingredient's configured value for "potential extract" and the hardware's value for "brewhouse efficiency". Along with values such as mash temperature the program can then make a good stab at the starting gravity of the beer and the ABV of the finished beer.

For some ingredients (e.g. lactose) there is the option to declare it "not fermentable" so it still provides the calculations with a figure for "potential extract" to come up with a starting gravity, but none of that extract is involved in calculating alcohol so it all ends up in the estimate of finishing gravity.

Good! Following? Sorry, this is a bit long-winded.

But there is nothing in between. The calculated extract is either processed as fermentable, or else all deemed not fermentable.

The figure for "extract" can be manipulated to only reflect fermentable extract. But then any "not fermentable" extract is skipped and not included as part of the final gravity. This has become a problem for me when designing beers containing a lot of crystal malt (particularly low-alcohol, <0.5% ABV, beers) where quite a high proportion of the sugars can be "not fermentable" or convertable having been subject to caramellisation and "Maillard's Reaction". Most extreme is "dextrin malt" ("Carapils", "Carafoam", etc.) which undergoes processes to preserve the dextrins against attack by mash enzymes and yeast enzymes despite being very light in colour and not being subject to caramellisation.

Currently I'm electing to designate all crystal malt as "not fermentable" for these low-alcohol formulations, which isn't ideal.

So: Could we have an option for "not fermentable" that took a figure representing the degree of fermentability ratther than just a basic checkbox. So if the ingredient option had a value of 50%, half would be passed to the calculations that figure out how much alcohol it will produce, and half will be treated as "not fermentable".
 
You could add two separate entries : half ?non fermentable? and the other half ?fermentable? or other ratio variations.

Have you seen this? Testing fermentability of crystal malt (post 108)

BLUF:

A)Crystal malt have sugars but still hold starches that can be converted
B)The amount of sugars that one can extract from crystal malts would increase if mashed with a base malt since the starches will be converted. PPG showed to increase by about 20%, regardless of the kilning level of the crystal malt.
B)The sugars from crystal malts are VERY fermentable, contrary to what we knew. Fermentability will depend on multiple factors like:
-Steeping crystal malt alone will yield sugars that can be attenuated by 50% for crystal 10 and 40% for darker malts.
-Mashing crystal malts with base malts will yield sugars that are almost as fermentable as base malt itself. For the 50-50% rate used, sugars from crystal-10 malts were attenuated by 70% while crystal 40 and 120 by 52% minimums. For a 10% crystal to grist rate, I guess it could be treated just as a base malt, which means very fermentable.
 
Oh yes. I may not of seen that particular article, but that chap ("Nilo") has been fairly prolific with his "sugars from crystal malts are VERY fermentable". Highly commendable, but only the opinion of ONE person (in a big world). I'd need a bit more convincing than that! And there is this - https://byo.com/mr-wizard/dextrin-malts/. And my own experiences with "low-alcohol" beer where quite a high proportion of extract can be from crystal malt, but calculating how much of that might be fermentable isn't easy (crystal malt is good for "low-alcohol" beer because it includes bags of flavour and ALOT of unfermentable dextrin).

I'm not asking Beersmith to provide values for "fermentability", just asking for the ability to manipulate it one's self.
 
You could adjust the yield of individual crystal malts to match your findings.
 
No you can't! I mentioned that in the OP: "The figure for "extract" can be manipulated ?" etc.
 
It's true that BeerSmith looks at fermentability as binary, but so does most of the brewing industry and homebrew advice.

The fermentability calculation is driven by the max attenuation number of your yeast.

The second important calculation is the mash temperature in the recipe and the slope defined in options. This is where you can fine tune fermentability for your overall techniques.

In my brewing practice, I usually mash for high fermentability, high extraction percentages and look for a lot of attenuation from my yeast. I tend to use less than 12% specialty malts and don't really have too much difference between predicted attenuation and actual.

Is this concern something your're seeing in actual practice?
 
brewfun said:
? Is this concern something your're seeing in actual practice?
It is!

Though perhaps I wouldn't have if I hadn't branched out into "low-alcohol" brewing. It's the opposite to your brewing practice; so low fermentability, therefore low (fermentable) extraction percentages, and low attenuation from yeast (I use "Fermentis S-33" to leave dextrin alone, but some are experimenting with weird "wild" yeast - saccharomycodes ludwigii, and that isn't a spelling mistake!). I might also use 30-50% crystal/caramel malts - a death knell for "normal" beers but when dealing with that much crystal malt the brewing software could help a lot by doing more to take "fermentability" into account.
 
PeeBee said:
brewfun said:
? Is this concern something your're seeing in actual practice?
It is!

Though perhaps I wouldn't have if I hadn't branched out into "low-alcohol" brewing. It's the opposite to your brewing practice; so low fermentability, therefore low (fermentable) extraction percentages, and low attenuation from yeast (I use "Fermentis S-33" to leave dextrin alone, but some are experimenting with weird "wild" yeast - saccharomycodes ludwigii, and that isn't a spelling mistake!). I might also use 30-50% crystal/caramel malts - a death knell for "normal" beers but when dealing with that much crystal malt the brewing software could help a lot by doing more to take "fermentability" into account.

Can you give us some specific examples of your mash temperature, OG and FG?  How well is the FG calculation coming out for you in higher alcohol recipes?  Just looking to see if there is another handle which can be used to get you where you want to be.

 
Brew Bama said:
You could add two separate entries : half ?non fermentable? and the other half ?fermentable? or other ratio variations. -
I could; an entry for a "dummy" makeup ingredient that can be used to compensate for the fermentable proportion of (e.g. crystal) malt (which will still be "not fermentable" but with it's extract reduced to only cover the "not fermentable" bit).

Thanks for making me think along those lines. But it is still only a better work-around than I'm using and not a "fix".
 
Oginme said:
PeeBee said:
brewfun said:
? Is this concern something your're seeing in actual practice?
It is!

Though perhaps I wouldn't have if I hadn't branched out into "low-alcohol" brewing. It's the opposite to your brewing practice; so low fermentability, therefore low (fermentable) extraction percentages, and low attenuation from yeast (I use "Fermentis S-33" to leave dextrin alone, but some are experimenting with weird "wild" yeast - saccharomycodes ludwigii, and that isn't a spelling mistake!). I might also use 30-50% crystal/caramel malts - a death knell for "normal" beers but when dealing with that much crystal malt the brewing software could help a lot by doing more to take "fermentability" into account.

Can you give us some specific examples of your mash temperature, OG and FG?  How well is the FG calculation coming out for you in higher alcohol recipes?  Just looking to see if there is another handle which can be used to get you where you want to be.
FG is coming out okay-ish for "normal" beers, and there is the option to dabble with the "slope of FG atten adjustment" option (although that option is always handicapped by trying to make a straight line approximate for a curved line).

But an earlier "low-alcohol" brew had an estimated FG 1.005, an actual FG 1.009, estimated attenuation 65%, actual 28%, and estimated ABV 1.3%, actual ABV 0.5%. Attached is the "Session" page. 50% base malts, 50% crystal malts.

EDIT: Missed some requested info. Predicted SG 1.015, actual 1.012 (I messed that one up a bit?). Mash temperature 74C !).
 

Attachments

  • Afon Ceidiog.JPG
    Afon Ceidiog.JPG
    157.2 KB · Views: 467
PeeBee said:
I might also use 30-50% crystal/caramel malts - a death knell for "normal" beers but when dealing with that much crystal malt the brewing software could help a lot by doing more to take "fermentability" into account.

I just looked at a 3 year old dark mild recipe that BeerSmith predicts at 2.6% abv. It has 30% specialty malts, and the base is pilsner malt. The actual wort was made at 155F and hit the correct starting gravity, post boil. My records show the predicted attenuation was 67%, but my actual was 73%, making the beer 3% abv. If I take the pilsner malt out, the specialty malts (two kinds of crystal and a bit of chocolate malt) account for 0.6% abv., according to BeerSmith.

I've made a lot of 4% beer, what I described was the lowest alcohol, highest specialty malt recipe in my archive. I wish I had more recipes to compare with you because I don't doubt your results. I just happened to end up with more fermentability than expected in this one example.
 
PeeBee said:
But an earlier "low-alcohol" brew had an estimated FG 1.005, an actual FG 1.009, estimated attenuation 65%, actual 28%, and estimated ABV 1.3%, actual ABV 0.5%. Attached is the "Session" page. 50% base malts, 50% crystal malts.

EDIT: Missed some requested info. Predicted SG 1.015, actual 1.012 (I messed that one up a bit?). Mash temperature 74C !).

Interestingly, your graph shows you hit terminal gravity in 24 hours. This makes me wonder about your yeast pitch: freshness, cell count and oxygenation. A graph like that usually means under oxygenation and/or stressed yeast. In that condition, yeast can quickly go into crabtree and only ferment the simplest sugars, ignoring maltose. In most all grain worts at 1.045 to 1.060, this effect results in about 1.5% alcohol before stalling.

So, it looks like there might be more to review.

EDIT: All malt worts tend to have about 3% glucose, which is what ferments so quickly. That means about 1.5% alcohol. I corrected my post, above.
 
So looking at your recipe representing a single data point, you are mashing at 74C which is higher than the recommended range for alpha amylase and way above the range for beta amylase.  I think this skews any correlation of non-fermentable aspects of the crystal malts.  The model for fermentability of the wort hits a max at 71C and does not respond to higher temperatures.  This is intended to mirror the speed of denaturing of the enzymes due to this same high temperatures.  Basically, you are above the range that the model is capable to predicting due to limitations within the software.  That is your issue and not necessarily the potential of the crystal malts.

I think if you petitioned Brad to extend the range for wort fermentability as a function of mash temperature to cover the range up to 74C that might give you a better prediction of what you would obtain.

 
brewfun said:
- So, it looks like there might be more to review. -
'Eck. I'm guilty of derailing my own thread. I was posting a suggestion for enhancing the Beersmith program, but I've mentioned "low-alcohol beer" and look what's happened! (At least my "low-alcohol" brewing hasn't derailed someone else's thread this time).

But - low-alcohol worts are not oxygenated for fear of encouraging spoilage microbes. Dried yeast has more than enough oxygen needs already dealt with. And the yeast will be stressed - there isn't much food! The yeast is only dropping 4-5 gravity points which probably happens in a matter of minutes; the readings in the attached graph are probably too infrequent. S. Lugwigii is becoming popular because it will not touch maltose, so what you say about saccharomyces cerevisiae only fermenting glucose if stressed raises an eyebrow!

I lied about the beer in that attachment: It seems that recipe only had about 20% crystal malt, not 50% (Munich and rye for base malts).
 
Oginme said:
So looking at your recipe representing a single data point, you are mashing at 74C which is higher than the recommended range for alpha amylase and way above the range for beta amylase.  I think this skews any correlation of non-fermentable aspects of the crystal malts.  The model for fermentability of the wort hits a max at 71C and does not respond to higher temperatures.  This is intended to mirror the speed of denaturing of the enzymes due to this same high temperatures.  Basically, you are above the range that the model is capable to predicting due to limitations within the software.  That is your issue and not necessarily the potential of the crystal malts.

I think if you petitioned Brad to extend the range for wort fermentability as a function of mash temperature to cover the range up to 74C that might give you a better prediction of what you would obtain.
Maxes out 71C, that is valuable to know! So what flags, banners and other apparatus do I need to petition Brad? 74C would be nice, but I think alpha-amylase is still good at 75-76C (only mashing for 30 minutes, and for this situation who cares if beta-amylase is getting a hard time). Some old Victorian recipes (Porter?) were allegedly mashed at such high temperatures too.

And being able to tweak "fermentability", even if only roughly, would be a nice-to-have too. A percentage "not fermentable" rather than an all or nothing checkbox.
 
You can write to him directly and explain what you are attempting to do.  You can then explain to him (examples are always good to help him understand the application) why you want the upper limit of the fermentability range increased.  His email address is on the BeerSmith web site.


As an aside, Wells Bombadier is made in a similar fashion.  I distinctly remember and interview with the head brewer (or someone who talked to the head brewer maybe) where he stated that they mashed at around 74C and did not expect much, if any, fermentable sugars at that temperature.  They then add invert sugar to get the fermentable portion of the wort. 
 
Oginme said:
- As an aside, Wells Bombadier is made in a similar fashion.  I distinctly remember and interview with the head brewer (or someone who talked to the head brewer maybe) where he stated that they mashed at around 74C and did not expect much, if any, fermentable sugars at that temperature.  They then add invert sugar to get the fermentable portion of the wort.
I listened to the 2012 Jamil Show "Can you brew it?" for Well's Bombardier and it was interviewing the brewer at Well's, Jim Robertson. And yes, they mash at 74C, use a lot of sugar and manage to get the FG down to 1.011-12 (from 1.050-55). Jim spoke of 74C as if it was quite normal.

I get an attenuation of only about 30% mashing at that temperature, but I'm not using any sugar and fermenting with a dextrin/"maltotriose" adverse yeast. I consider "maltotrose" to be a dextrin (about 18% of fermentables in a "standard" wort).
 
Are we still thinking apples to apples, here?

It seems that unfermentability is properly built into BeerSmith from mash temperature. You're mashing high, as advised by a podcast, and getting the proper results in your own fermentation. You're not using the sugar addition that would match the Bombardier technique and desired yeast conditions to limit malt fermentation.

Very low alcohol brewing is akin to very high alcohol brewing. It's on the edges of "standard" techniques. Personally, I can't fault software for using accepted, standard calculations from not being able to predict what'll happen when brewer's push the boundaries. I've hit some unexpected results in my career that certainly don't match what software or a spreadsheet says. The reason is usually a combination of changes to conditions, techniques or ingredients. I tend to question myself more than I question software.

That said, there are frequently observed bugs in BeerSmith that have gone unaddressed for years and years.
 
PeeBee said:
Oginme said:
- As an aside, Wells Bombadier is made in a similar fashion.  I distinctly remember and interview with the head brewer (or someone who talked to the head brewer maybe) where he stated that they mashed at around 74C and did not expect much, if any, fermentable sugars at that temperature.  They then add invert sugar to get the fermentable portion of the wort.
I listened to the 2012 Jamil Show "Can you brew it?" for Well's Bombardier and it was interviewing the brewer at Well's, Jim Robertson. And yes, they mash at 74C, use a lot of sugar and manage to get the FG down to 1.011-12 (from 1.050-55). Jim spoke of 74C as if it was quite normal.

I get an attenuation of only about 30% mashing at that temperature, but I'm not using any sugar and fermenting with a dextrin/"maltotriose" adverse yeast. I consider "maltotrose" to be a dextrin (about 18% of fermentables in a "standard" wort).

And the point of the commentary in that show was that they use the grains strictly to attain the flavor and mouthfeel profile they want and the added sugar to get the alcohol.  While you are not adding sugars in your recipes, you are operating at a range which is outside the accepted range for all-grain wort fermentability.  While the simplified attenuation adjustment in BeerSmith gives a linear relationship, it is hardly linear.  There are distinct limits on both the bottom end of the fermentability range, where there is little gelatinization of the starches to make them available for reduction by the enzymes, and on the high end, where the enzymes become denatured too quickly to fully act upon the available starches to convert them into a large amount of sugars which can be utilized by the yeast.  When you work outside the limits of what is typical, you need to have a lot of experience, as the brewers at Wells do, to understand where your process will end up. 

As Brewfun pointed out, this is really on the edge of accepted techniques and to expect the software to properly model it for your specific case may not be reasonable.  All you can do is ask the developer to adjust the limits on the projection for wort fermentability, but even then it would be a hit-or-miss type of estimation -- being too far away from the linear portion of the fermentability model to be very accurate.

Your best move would be to keep good records and notes of what your process yields given these conditions so you know what to expect in the future.

 
Back
Top