extract potential of Pumpkin?

Does anyone know the extract potential (points per pound per gallon) of pumpkin, either canned or fresh?

I'm wanting to add pumpkin to my mash, but I can't find any good info on how many points I can expect to get out of it which makes crafting the recipe to hit a target SG somewhat difficult. I read Jamil's recipe in BCS, but the only hints on what to expect is if using real pumpkin is he says to subtract 2 lbs of malt and add 5lbs of pumpkin. so am I to assume 2/5*36 = 14.4? Is that reasonable?

My canned pumpkin says 4 grams of sugar per 122 gram serving. That's 3% or about 12 points per pound.

I'll be doing a pumpkin recipe soon and I'm just ignoring any possible fermentable contributions. If it turns out slightly sweeter/higher in alcohol, either one seems like it would fit with the style. The punkin flavor's what I'm really after...

Pumpkin has a lot of starch, which will be converted to more sugar during the mash, so I bet it will be much higher than an extract potential of 1.012.

And I've heard the pumpkin flavor really doesn't come from the pumpkin, it comes from the pumpkin spices.

I was wondering this too. I'm gonna do that recipe from the book and debating whether or not to use pumpkin at all.

Pumpkin has a lot of starch, which will be converted to more sugar during the mash, so I bet it will be much higher than an extract potential of 1.012.

Click to expand...

Not what I have. 9 gram total carbohydrates: 4 grams sugars, 5 grams dietary fiber. Fiber isn't starch.

Just did a version of Yuri's Thunderstruck pumpkin that would be 1.050 without any sugar from the pumpkin. I added 60 ounces of pumpkin in the mash and the gravity turned out to be 1.060. So a pound of pumpkin added about .0025 to my gravity.

I haven't found that it adds significantly to the OG, though I understand that it probably should. While it may seem pretty unscientific or even downright ignorant of me, when formulating recipes, I just ignore any possible sugar contribution from the pumpkin. It works for me!

I brewed yuri's recipe this past weekend and ended up at 1.053 exactly what beersmith said I would get at 75% without the pumpkin. I'm convinced that the REALLY long sparge had something to do with the lower than expected efficiency. It took close to 4 hours to get the 13.7G and the grain bed was cooler than normal.

You can calculate it out, but make sure to take a gravity reading once finished sparging. Then adjust with DME or water as needed.

Maybe it is just me, but pumpkin sure seems variable.

I'll probably not calculate the pumpkin in. If I do end up with a higher than expected preboil gravity I can just adjust my hops and volume.

I'm getting from you guys that my OG estimations shouldn't really be affected by the pumpkin. That's in line with my experience the one time I made a pumpkin ale (with fresh pumpkin).

But what about mash water? If the pumpkin is in the mash, should it be treated just like malted barley as far as required water volume goes?

I too am crafting a pumpkin ale. I'm adding a 5 lb sugar pumpkin to my mash, then to the boil (same piece) and i will leave it out of the fermentor. I'll probably end up with 4 lbs without the stem and seeds.

I'll bake it first to caramelize it.

I'll find out what my preboil gravity and OG is from there and post it so we can calculate stuff. I added pumpkin to BS using the standard potential SG of 1.035, so we'll see.

Yuri_Rage said:

I haven't found that it adds significantly to the OG, though I understand that it probably should. While it may seem pretty unscientific or even downright ignorant of me, when formulating recipes, I just ignore any possible sugar contribution from the pumpkin. It works for me!

Click to expand...

I agree with this, and do the same!

i did it today and pumpkin made up 27.82% of my bill projected to get OG of 1.085. I vastly undershot it at 1.048 so I added 1.5 lbs LME to bring it up 12 gravity points to 1.060. idk how you calculate the potential SG of pumpkin from this.

mendozer said:

i did it today and pumpkin made up 27.82% of my bill projected to get OG of 1.085. I vastly undershot it at 1.048 so I added 1.5 lbs LME to bring it up 12 gravity points to 1.060. idk how you calculate the potential SG of pumpkin from this.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can. Your numbers are so undershot that something must have gone wrong with your grains too, as far as mashing efficiency goes. Unfortunately I am not of any more help, because I just did my pumpkin brew and got a similar result (1.079 projected; 1.049 realized). The difference is that I used an estimated potential of 1.012 for pumpkins, so my grains steeped even less effectively than yours.

I did make one potentially useful observation, and that's that pumpkins do not absorb water anything like malted barley. I'll take this to mean that we should use less water for the same per-pound mash bill.

Using a potential of 1.012 seems very optimistic for pumpkin, unless I'm missing something. If pumpkin is 3% sugars and 0% starch, then 3.6 lbs (2 big cans) of pumpkin only has 0.11 lbs of sugars, which would give you like 1 point on your specific gravity. Assuming a potential of 1.012 would result in several points. So I dunno where 1.012 came from, but it can't be right.

It would seem best to ignore any contribution of pumpkin.

i did a 1.7qt/lb ratio for water. i've read elsewhere that pumpkin requires amylase. i usually add this in the primary. would adding it to the mash help?

mendozer said:

i did a 1.7qt/lb ratio for water. i've read elsewhere that pumpkin requires amylase. i usually add this in the primary. would adding it to the mash help?

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear the reasoning that pumpkin requires amylase. It has very little starch, so i don't understand that recommendation. Maybe a couple percent starch maximum; just look at the can, which indicates essentially zero starch. But regardless, the enzymes from the other grains will be more than enough.

So since pumpkin is only 3% sugar by weight, and straight sugar has a potential of around 1.045, then I think the potential of pumpkin would be simply 0.03x45, which is 1.0013. That's a far cry from the 1.012 someone tossed out there.

someone else stated it was mostly starch. now i know to add it in and not adjust my grain bill

mendozer said:

someone else stated it was mostly starch. now i know to add it in and not adjust my grain bill

Click to expand...

Whoever said it's mostly starch is just flat wrong, as someone else pointed out. Just look at the can of Libby's -- there's no starch in pumpkin. Just water, and a little fiber and sugar.

so libby's is 3% sugar, what about fresh sugar pumpkin?

Here is a nutritional label for 1 cup of pumpkin. The source is http://nutritiondata.self.com.

SpeedYellow said:

So since pumpkin is only 3% sugar by weight, and straight sugar has a potential of around 1.045, then I think the potential of pumpkin would be simply 0.03x45, which is 1.0013. That's a far cry from the 1.012 someone tossed out there.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the help; I was the one who "tossed out" the number of 1.012, which really was pulled out of nowhere.

It appears then, that pumpkin should be completed excluded from estimates.

If anyone has any further suggestions on the ideal grain/water ratio, it'd be appreciated.

- Mat

mcl said:

Here is a nutritional label for 1 cup of pumpkin. The source is http://nutritiondata.self.com.

Click to expand...

See how there are 12 total grams of carbohydrates?
And only 2 grams of that are sugars and 3 grams is fiber (insoluble). The remaining 7 grams that are unlisted are starchy carbohydrates.

Whoever is saying there is no starch in a pumpkin is seriously confused about what a gourd is and how to read a nutritional label.

While a google search may not deliver the clearest of results, especially since the FDA's nutritional data ignores starch content of foods, there are plenty of references to the carbohydrates in pumpkin being 'starchy'. This study, for example, looks at and compares pumpkin starch to corn and potato starch.

So it would make sense that the enzymes in barley, or added enzymes would unlock the sugars locked in these starches. Maybe longer mashes, or step-mashing would yield good results for gourd-containing recipes?

TanLang said:

See how there are 12 total grams of carbohydrates?
And only 2 grams of that are sugars and 3 grams is fiber (insoluble). The remaining 7 grams that are unlisted are starchy carbohydrates.

Whoever is saying there is no starch in a pumpkin is seriously confused about what a gourd is and how to read a nutritional label.

While a google search may not deliver the clearest of results, especially since the FDA's nutritional data ignores starch content of foods, there are plenty of references to the carbohydrates in pumpkin being 'starchy'. This study, for example, looks at and compares pumpkin starch to corn and potato starch.

So it would make sense that the enzymes in barley, or added enzymes would unlock the sugars locked in these starches. Maybe longer mashes, or step-mashing would yield god results for gourd-containing recipes?

Click to expand...

Instead of lazily calling people ignorant, perhaps you should work out the numbers. Accepting that there are 9g of sugars and convertible starches, that's just 3.7% by weight. Assuming potential of around 43 pts (sugar is 45), that gives us a potential of 1.0016 (pretty close to the 1.0013 posted above). i.e. 9/245*43

So the conclusion remains that pumpkins contribute minimal sugars.

SpeedYellow said:

Instead of lazily calling people ignorant, perhaps you should work out the numbers. Accepting that there are 9g of sugars and convertible starches, that's just 3.7% by weight. Assuming potential of around 43 pts (sugar is 45), that gives us a potential of 1.0016 (pretty close to the 1.0013 posted above). i.e. 9/245*43

So the conclusion remains that pumpkins contribute minimal sugars.

Click to expand...

I still stand by my point that pumpkins and related gourds contain starch. How much they contribute in terms of gravity, is not something I specifically commented on, and so I cannot agree or disagree with you on that point.