Fermentability

Hey you two, don't shoot the messenger! This is the "suggestions" forum, and the suggestion I was making relates to a relatively new concept that is gaining a lot of interest - now wouldn't it be nice if Beersmith kept up with that interest? If Beersmith doesn't, the next "new thing" will and I don't imagine Brad want's to let Beersmith fall by the wayside.

But I've been given instructions to petition Brad for what I think will be useful modifications; thanks very much for that.

I'm quite used to fudging programs to get what I want (but I wasn't even aware that Beersmith switches off when mash temperature gets over 71C - thanks again for that). I'm rather keen to try "Brew Bama's" idea of fudging a dummy ingredient so I can split an ingredient's potentially "fermentable" extract and "not fermentable" extract (particularly to help guesstimate extracts from 71C-plus mashes).

I'd still like mash predictions to extend beyond 71C, if only roughly (better than nothing at all). I'd still like "not fermentable" to be a percentage not an all-or-nothing checkbox option. But these changes are to gain some user tools, not demand Beersmith provides accurate estimates for extreme uses.

Along the way this thread has picked out that the modifications could be used for mainstream "alcoholic" brews ("Bombardier" like beers) not just my pet subject of "low-alcohol" beers. I might be tempted to experiment along those lines (I'm not a saint for most days of the week).

I'm impressed; I'm getting more than I bargained for out of just making a suggestion!

I didn't think we were trying to "shoot the messenger" and sorry if it came across that way.  I have no issues with the extension of the fermentability model a little beyond what is normally accepted, with the caveat that the accuracy of this prediction of FG may be way off. 

I was thinking again about this problem during my daily walk (I have an incentive to walk enough calories off each day to earn my nightly beer!), specifically around the amount of activity which might be expected from the beta amylase enzyme at this mash temperature.  Since the beta amylase is the main enzyme responsible for the production of maltose and would have a much shorter time for activity at the higher mash temperature, the only real conversion to fermentable sugars would be the random action of the alpha amylase which cleaves the starch chains down to smaller variable lengths of dextrins.  There are already a certain amount of fermentable sugars in the caramel/crystal malts which would be made available just through solubilization.  So the big question is really how much of the base malts would be reduced to fermentable species?

Given this amount of fermentables available from the specialty malts would help to define just how much fermentable sugars get produced from the base malts.  As Brewfun stated earlier, there is about 3% of the sugars which are glucose molecules, presumably from the action of the alpha amylase (random cuts).  So given a few results (OG/FG) and the corresponding grain bill, you might be able to make a stab at how much fermentable sugar comes from the base grains with the minimum probably being around the 3% level.

Just some food for thought.

So because I am procrastinating on doing a cash flow projection on a new project, I started fooling around with the program.  If I use a Maris Otter/Crystal 40 combination split 60%/40% and set the OG at 1.012 (as per the information given) with a mash temperature of 74C, I got a FG prediction of 1.007.  Now I marked the Maris Otter as non-fermentable and the FG came up to 1.009.  Pretty much matches what you actually achieved. 

Of course, your actual recipe and malt split may be different, but it does support modelling the lack of activity of the beta amylase at that temperature.

^^^ While typing my response, Oginme did the math. It's a solid workaround.

PeeBee said:

Hey you two, don't shoot the messenger! This is the "suggestions" forum, and the suggestion I was making relates to a relatively new concept that is gaining a lot of interest - now wouldn't it be nice if Beersmith kept up with that interest? If Beersmith doesn't, the next "new thing" will and I don't imagine Brad want's to let Beersmith fall by the wayside.

Click to expand...

I agree that suggestion threads deserve more deference than the same subject in another forum. I certainly was trying to show my own experience as a contrast to yours, not as a criticism. I'm sorry if I came off in any other way.

I don't think BeerSmith will fall based on missing a trend or two. I think just about everything BeerSmith calculates has some backing in research by others. There is also consensus understanding about general brewing techniques that are baked in.

Lower alcohol beer has become a subject of interest, owing much to the research of Ron Pattinson. So at this point, we have some quantitative data about historic methods, but not much technical or qualitative. I think Mr. Pattinson makes a few important points along the way. First, beer as "style" is an evolution, not a destination or a singular historic time point. Secondly, brewers have always modified their recipes and techniques based on emerging technology and changing public preference.

In a recent podcast, Mr. Pattinson noted that British beer changed a lot around WWI because of ingredient availability AND government. New taxes were initiated, mandates for production of low alcohol beer was initiated, changes to pub ownership (tied houses) emerged and prices increased faster than wages for a while.

When it comes to using a 21st century program to model late 19th to early 20th century techniques, I think it's a bit of a stretch. Those forefathers had to figure it out based on experience and intuition. So, let the program get you into the right ballpark for your brewing system. Then, be an artist; let your experience and skill show.

Oginme said:

So because I am procrastinating on doing a cash flow projection on a new project, I started fooling around with the program.  If I use a Maris Otter/Crystal 40 combination split 60%/40% and set the OG at 1.012 (as per the information given) with a mash temperature of 74C, I got a FG prediction of 1.007.  Now I marked the Maris Otter as non-fermentable and the FG came up to 1.009.  Pretty much matches what you actually achieved. 

Of course, your actual recipe and malt split may be different, but it does support modelling the lack of activity of the beta amylase at that temperature.

Click to expand...

Had to have a go at that! Made a copy of the recipe (about 17% crystal .. I think it would be 80; EBC150-170). Base malts Rye (75%) and Munich (25%), about 1kg; marked as "not fermentable". 18L batch. Predicted OG 1.015, predicted FG 1.013. Drat, that don't match what I achieved (1.009).

A graph (attached) generated by a "Tilt" hydrometer (OG1.065 - this ain't "low-alcohol"!) shows the feature of Fermentis S-33 yeast I'm relying on. It shows the yeast hitting the "maltotriose" "wall". Most yeasts finish a bit less abruptly as it slowly "has a go" at the dextrin. I'm not expecting Beersmith to model the kookiness of these yeasts.


I'm using an old example of my "low-alcohol" attempts because the more recent ones play with "cold extraction" and that seriously messes with fermentability calculations!

brewfun said:

. . . Lower alcohol beer has become a subject of interest, owing much to the research of Ron Pattinson. So at this point, we have some quantitative data about historic methods, but not much technical or qualitative. I think Mr. Pattinson makes a few important points along the way. First, beer as "style" is an evolution, not a destination or a singular historic time point. Secondly, brewers have always modified their recipes and techniques based on emerging technology and changing public preference. . . .

Click to expand...

Cheers Brewfun. I had a grub about in Ron's work and I think he is really talking about historic "table" and "small" beer. I'm not helping talking about "low-alcohol" beer but that's a reflection of the strict alcohol laws over here (UK). You over there (and most of the rest of the world) would describe what I've been babbling about as NO alcohol!

Brewing at <0.5% ABV is more a "modern" trend that wouldn't interest a historian like Ron. I'm pleased that Oginme bought up "Bombardier" to rescue my suggestions to apply to a wider audience of "normal" strength beers, not just the very narrow appeal "no-alcohol" beers.

My interest in "no-alcohol" brewing is so I can keep up my hobby and drink its results every day. Whereas if I was to drink "normal" strength beer every day it might lead to a situation where I'm told to stop drinking beer completely, or face a miserable death. That would spoil a good hobby! I'm not the only one thinking like this, though there are others with other reasons to brew such weak beer, but I am the tip of a very fast growing "iceberg" of interest in brewing "no-alcohol".

Cheers to you for your work so far.

I know that some of the head brewers that I have talked to at length have come to know their system and its quirks.  In doing so, they use software such as BeerSmith not for the actual results that it spits out, but for the process steps and recipe design, knowing full well what their outcome (mostly FG and bitterness) would be different than what the software predicts.  I suspect that the brewers at Wells & Young's Brewery know their system intuitively at this point to understand exactly how to manipulate it to get their desired results.

Now that we have narrowed down the real issue you were facing, maybe Brad will read through this and make a change to allow for the flexibility in designing and producing beers such as you are working towards.

This was a fairly interesting "discovery" that should help me fill-in some blanks in the work-arounds ahead of any potential tweaks to the Beersmith program:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fermentable-sugar-profiles-mashed-in-at-10-different-temperatures-and-compared-with-the_fig4_226691242
"Maltotetraose"? Is there any end to it! I've still to "petition" Brad to extend the mash temperature range; can't find his email? I know why it can't be posted into a forum! But any other pointers?

I found the above link researching what Well's get up to with the "Bombardier" mash schedule. Especially the 52C step; another "protein rest" I'd thought (yawn). Not at all! "Limit Dextrinase". That was pretty interesting stuff and certainly fits in with the 74C mash. I'll give it a miss for "low-alcohol" brewing though.

Thanks for the literature link.  It will make interesting reading, I am sure.  Usually, it is the limit dextrins which contribute to the body of a beer, since the amylase enzymes are not designed to sever the 1-4 glucosyl bonds. 

Brad's email address is on the main BeerSmith web site.

PeeBee said:

I've still to "petition" Brad to extend the mash temperature range; can't find his email? I know why it can't be posted into a forum! But any other pointers?

Click to expand...

Try this: http://beersmith.com/contact-us/