What factors influence sweetness?

What factors do you use to control the sweetness of your beer?

I assume that any difference between the actual attenuation and the limit of attenuation will increase sweetness, as this indicates the presence of residual unfermented sugars. To increase sweetness in this manner, I assume you would choose a less attenuative yeast that flocculates earlier, thus leaving the fermentation incomplete, or by under-pitching. But this seems like a pretty unpredictable process that would be difficult to get exactly right (for instance if you are trying to hit a specific final gravity).

The other factor commonly mentioned is fermentation temperature. But this is a little confusing, because shouldn't higher fermentation temperatures just increase the percentage of unfermentable vs. fermentable sugars -- i.e. creating a more dextrinous beer? Dextrins, I believe, are not actually sweet; they contribute to the body of the beer, so I am unclear as to why fermentation temperature would influence sweetness, if it actually does so.

A third factor would be the type of malt used. Crystal and Munich, for example, are supposed to contribute sweetness. In what way do they do so? Do they just contribute unfermentable but non-dextrinous sugars? -- i.e. sugars that are perceived as sweet but are not fermentable?

Mash temperatures. Mash thickness. Easiest is mash temps. For a very sweet malty beer mash at 154 or higher. Dryer beers mash sub 150. Experiment with your favorite yeast and recipes to find the right balance. Mash thickness has some effect too but I dont recall exactly what it is.

I enjoy a sweeter beer and plan on mashing my Rogue Dead Guy clone at 152 to 154 to bring out a maltier character.

sniemeyer said:

The other factor commonly mentioned is fermentation temperature. But this is a little confusing, because shouldn't higher fermentation temperatures just increase the percentage of unfermentable vs. fermentable sugars -- i.e. creating a more dextrinous beer? Dextrins, I believe, are not actually sweet; they contribute to the body of the beer, so I am unclear as to why fermentation temperature would influence sweetness, if it actually does so.

Click to expand...

I think you are trying to talk about MASH temperature, not fermentation temp. You are right, higher mash temperatures create more unfermentable sugars in general. However, you are confusing unfermentable sugar with dextrins (which are more like starch than sugar). They are NOT the same. Dextrins have no taste in general, but the sugars are still sweet, although nothing like table sugar (eat some lactose and you'll know what I mean).

These are a few of the sugars and sugar-like carbohydrates that may or may not be fermentable depending on the strain of yeast under anaerobic respiration:
Cellobiose
D-Galactose
D-Glucitol
Glycerol
Inulin
DL-Lactate
Lactose
Maltose
D-Mannitol
Melezitose
Melebiose
Methly-alpha-D-glucopyranoside
Raffinose
L-Sorbose
Succinic Acid
Sucrose
Trehalose
D-Xylose
Xylitol

Even maltotriose is only very slightly sweet, and that is fermentable. Lactose of course is readily fermentable, just not to brewers' yeast.

That high mash temperatures create sweet beer is a homebrewer's myth that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Charlie Bamforth was on a Brewing Network show a while ago and recommended mashing in the 160s to make a low alcohol beer. Someone in the chat asked "won't that make the beer sweet?" and his reaction was basically "why the hell would you think that?"

Didn't Bamforth also say that he doesn't believe dextrins are responsible for mouthfeel? Or maybe it was 'wholly responsible' or something.

I have recently found that lower attenuating/higher floccing yeast that yields higher FG doesn't necessarily translate to increased mouthfeel. WY1968/WLP002 English Ale yeast doesn't leave a particularly full mouthfeel but is a very high floccer. While not a very scientific/controlled experiment, a guy in a small homebrew club split a 10 gal batch into 2 carboys and used Wy1968 in one and Wy1007 (German ale) yeast in the other. The German ale yeast batch had a noticably fuller mouthfeel but lower FG.

SpanishCastleAle said:

Didn't Bamforth also say that he doesn't believe dextrins are responsible for mouthfeel? Or maybe it was 'wholly responsible' or something.

I have recently found that lower attenuating/higher floccing yeast that yields higher FG doesn't necessarily translate to increased mouthfeel. WY1968/WLP002 English Ale yeast doesn't leave a particularly full mouthfeel but is a very high floccer. While not a very scientific/controlled experiment, a guy in a small homebrew club split a 10 gal batch into 2 carboys and used Wy1968 in one and Wy1007 (German ale) yeast in the other. The German ale yeast batch had a noticably fuller mouthfeel but lower FG.

Click to expand...

Yeah he said "we don't know what affects mouthfeel but we know it isn't dextrins" or something very close to that. It's amazing the stuff he'll say like everybody and their mother knows it that contradicts what every homebrewer "knows". The last time he was on he said that malt has enzymes that inhibit proteolysis such that you can't get much proteolysis in the mash (the inhibiting enzymes are not active at malting temperatures).

remilard said:

Yeah he said "we don't know what affects mouthfeel but we know it isn't dextrins" or something very close to that. It's amazing the stuff he'll say like everybody and their mother knows it that contradicts what every homebrewer "knows". The last time he was on he said that malt has enzymes that inhibit proteolysis such that you can't get much proteolysis in the mash (the inhibiting enzymes are not active at malting temperatures).

Click to expand...

Meaning that protein rests are BS?

remilard said:

Yeah he said "we don't know what affects mouthfeel but we know it isn't dextrins" or something very close to that. It's amazing the stuff he'll say like everybody and their mother knows it that contradicts what every homebrewer "knows". The last time he was on he said that malt has enzymes that inhibit proteolysis such that you can't get much proteolysis in the mash (the inhibiting enzymes are not active at malting temperatures).

Click to expand...

I thought he said it was because they were denatured during kilning but could be confusing this with something else.

Isn't a lower FG going to mean more alcohol? Alcohol is thinner than water, hence the term 'apparent attenuation' so if removing more solids (fermentable sugar vs dextrins) and replacing it with alcohol doesn't affect mouth feel/body then I'm confused on what "mouth feel" means I guess.

Okay color me completely stunned... I've read everywhere that its scientific fact that lower mash temps create a dryer beer, and higher mash temps create less fermentable wort, leaving more residual sugars, leaving a maltier beer... Now remilard is saying its a myth that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. So w/ the loads of anecdotal evidence just here on this board, and nothing but an unconfirmable claim of 'no no' you say everyone else is wrong? I'd definitely like to see some data that backs that up. I've personally mashed at different temps on purpose and gotten more sweet/malty beers by mashing around 154, and very dry beers by mashing say 148-149. So my personal experience confirms this too. Are we all just really lucky?

More to my point, if you read Palmer, considered the mad scientist of brewing, or genius whichever you want, he states clearly:

"What do these two enzymes and temperatures mean to the brewer? The practical application of this knowledge allows the brewer to customize the wort in terms of its fermentability. A lower mash temperature, less than or equal to 150°F, yields a thinner bodied, drier beer. A higher mash temperature, greater than or equal to 156°F, yields a less fermentable, sweeter beer. This is where a brewer can really fine tune a wort to best produce a particular style of beer."

This taken from:

http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-5.html

His book "How to Brew" which is online for free. the whole of chapter 14 is awesome in explaining it. Effectively, the lower temps only hit the Beta-Amylase phase which can't convert all sugars well, but gets most of them to a mode where the yeast can eat it. The higher temps sit the fence between Beta-Amylase and Alpha-Amylase production creating a team of enzymes that whack away as the sugars creating much more fermentable sugars and a dryer beer... Am I misunderstanding this? Is Palmer wrong?

pompeiisneaks said:

More to my point, if you read Palmer, considered the mad scientist of brewing, or genius whichever you want, he states clearly:

"What do these two enzymes and temperatures mean to the brewer? The practical application of this knowledge allows the brewer to customize the wort in terms of its fermentability. A lower mash temperature, less than or equal to 150°F, yields a thinner bodied, drier beer. A higher mash temperature, greater than or equal to 156°F, yields a less fermentable, sweeter beer. This is where a brewer can really fine tune a wort to best produce a particular style of beer."

This taken from:

http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-5.html

His book "How to Brew" which is online for free. the whole of chapter 14 is awesome in explaining it. Effectively, the lower temps only hit the Beta-Amylase phase which can't convert all sugars well, but gets most of them to a mode where the yeast can eat it. The higher temps sit the fence between Beta-Amylase and Alpha-Amylase production creating a team of enzymes that whack away as the sugars creating much more fermentable sugars and a dryer beer... Am I misunderstanding this? Is Palmer wrong?

Click to expand...

I've been wondering about the relationship between residual sugars and AA units. If the residual sugars mask/offset some of the AA units then you would perceive a less bitter (sweeter?) beer? If this is what is happening then it is more a case of less bitter than actual sweetness. I'm not sure why something like lactose is perceived to add body/mouth feel but dextrin wouldn't. I guess I can save a few bucks on my next milk stout though. I guess we can throw out dextrin malt and malto/dextrin as being hoaxes by the LHBS to sell us placebos?

If I understand it correctly, AA just 'masks' the existing sugars better, so lower AA allows a malty beer to feel fully malty, whereas the added bitterness of the AA causes the sugary flavor to be balanced in your palate by the bitterness. The same amount of final sugars is there, just offset by the bitterness. If you go for a dryer beer you need less hops to balance the flavor profile, unless you're shooting for a very hoppy beer anyway.

pompeiisneaks said:

If you go for a dryer beer you need less hops to balance the flavor profile

Click to expand...

This is why I've been thinking about this. All I ever see is AA units in relation to OG, not FG. OG will affect the extraction rate (and all IBU calculations seem based on that alone) but FG will be where the actual flavor balance is. Do you know of any data showing this? How much sugar offsets how many IBU? Supposedly it takes a 5 IBU shift before you notice a change.

Sorry I don't, I just know I've read that before in explaining how to balance out hops flavors, maltiness etc.

Palmer is not a brewing scientist.

As for a reference, like I said Charlie Bamforth (an actual brewing scientist).

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/582

What I am specifically saying is that things that are not fermentable are not sweet.

I have to note that your anecdotal evidence is different from mine. Most of the people I have talked to about this that convince me that they are observant, take good notes, and have good experience (like Kai Troester, and Jamil Z) seem to have the same experience as me. Mash temperature does not control sweetness. Yeast choice and the use of crystal malts do.

Well, lets call him what he is then, unless you're chummy with him... His name is Dr. Charlie Bamforth, and until today I've never heard of him, so now that I know it really helps... You're right that Palmer is not a Brewing Scientist, he's a rocket scientist... At any rate, all I was asking for was something linking me to the actual data where someone said "mash temperature does not change the malt profile or lack thereof" I've listened to that and he didn't say that, he just, as you indicated that specifically in this case that a mash temps of 160 wouldn't make a beer more sweet. Btw, one of the hosts of this IS John Palmer. I still don't equate that to a 'mash temps affecting sweetness of brew is a homebrew myth'. I'd love to have something defining that better... Because so far, I've still only seen people, evidence, and data points that indicate the opposite. I could guess, w/ the little said about it, that he indicated that a beer mashing between 154 to 160 or w/ higher hopping, wouldn't change sweetness one bit... but that's a guess w/o any real data/evidence, whereas the data/evidence points to this 'myth' being true...? They even referred to it as a myth, but didn't say its 100% not true, but that instead its a very complex mixture of a lot of other variables... Therefore I feel more confused by this whole discussion. It sounds like its more of a very complex mix of ph, mash temps, what types of sugars involved vs the sweetness they impart... etc. I still wonder, though, if there's anything they have imparted that defines what DOES contribute to sweetness. The discussion to me seems to be about "increased mash temps" does not relate 100% to increased sweetness, in every case. Maybe I misunderstood. Therefore what do you say IS a means of determining it? I'm still on the confused side w/ this, especially due to my own techniques...

Hermit said:

Isn't a lower FG going to mean more alcohol? Alcohol is thinner than water, hence the term 'apparent attenuation' so if removing more solids (fermentable sugar vs dextrins) and replacing it with alcohol doesn't affect mouth feel/body then I'm confused on what "mouth feel" means I guess.

Click to expand...

Whiskey is around half alcohol and has no dextrins yet has a fuller mouthfeel than most beers (as a counterexample to the notion that either specific gravity or dextrin content will predict mouthfeel).

remilard said:

Whiskey is around half alcohol and has no dextrins yet has a fuller mouthfeel than most beers (as a counterexample to the notion that either specific gravity or dextrin content will predict mouthfeel).

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Take one beer recipe. Mash one at 150 and one at 158. You are saying there will be no difference in mouth feel/body? Strong flavor, as in the case of whiskey because of the alcohol, is not in my opinion the same thing as mouth feel.

But take whiskey before aging in a charred oak barrel and some after tell me you think they have the same mouth feel/body? It picks up quite a bit from the barrel as evidenced by the color shift.

remilard said:

Even maltotriose is only very slightly sweet, and that is fermentable. Lactose of course is readily fermentable, just not to brewers' yeast.

That high mash temperatures create sweet beer is a homebrewer's myth that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Charlie Bamforth was on a Brewing Network show a while ago and recommended mashing in the 160s to make a low alcohol beer. Someone in the chat asked "won't that make the beer sweet?" and his reaction was basically "why the hell would you think that?"

Click to expand...

This really makes perfect sense. If higher temp converts less starch to fermentable sugar, there will be less alchohol, and no reason why there would be more sweetness. The larger sugars are not very sweet on the palette.

I gotta read more. Thanks for the links.

Hermit said:

Apples and oranges. Take one beer recipe. Mash one at 150 and one at 158. You are saying there will be no difference in mouth feel/body? Strong flavor, as in the case of whiskey because of the alcohol, is not in my opinion the same thing as mouth feel.

Click to expand...

I can tell the difference between flavor and mouthfeel, but thanks.

Of course in the case of the whiskey the mouthfeel is due to polyphenols from the oak.

I believe the latter will have fuller mouthfeel but not because of dextrins, because of glycoproteides as per Narziss and Fix. These are dissolved in the wort at around 158-162F.

So if instead you mash one beer at 149 (until conversion is complete) and then give it an extended rest at 160 I believe it will have about the same body as a beer mashed entirely at 160 with the same amount of time spent at 160 (conversion will occur very quickly).

Lagunitus IPA is mashed at 160, for the record. That freaks people out, it has a very typical body for a west coast IPA and it is absolutely not sweet.

Well, we have gone from sweetness to mouth feel so this is all off topic anyhow at this point. If you raise FG you raise the body. No way around that one. Body is part of mouth feel. The BJCP lists it as one of five criteria. I don't see how if you hold everything else equal, raise the mash temp, that you don't end up with more body and by definition more mouth feel. It is a contributing factor.

http://www.howtobrew.com/section4/chapter20-1.html

Very often brewers say that they like a beer but wish it had more body. What exactly is "more body"? Is it a physically heavier, more dense beer? More flavor? More viscosity? In most cases it means a higher final gravity (FG), but not at the expense of incomplete fermentation. On a basic level, adding unfermentables is the only way to increase the FG and increase the body/weight/mouthfeel of the beer.

Let's bring this back around to answer the original question. If the residual dextrins aren't sweet, then why are hops need to keep the beer from being cloying? What sugars aren't the yeast eating that makes this necessary? If I use only base grains can I get by with no hops and not have a cloying beer? What is the malty flavor coming from. Most of what we are washing out of the grain is sugar in one form or another. Serious question.

It is worth noting that the combination of mouthfeel and the aroma of sweetness can result in the perception of sweetness, even when a beer is totally dry.

And hops do add to the fruity, floral aroma of beer.

Hermit said:

Let's bring this back around to answer the original question. If the residual dextrins aren't sweet, then why are hops need to keep the beer from being cloying? What sugars aren't the yeast eating that makes this necessary? If I use only base grains can I get by with no hops and not have a cloying beer? What is the malty flavor coming from. Most of what we are washing out of the grain is sugar in one form or another. Serious question.

Click to expand...

Your assumption that unhopped beer would necessarily be cloying is incorrect.

Many beers (hefeweizen, american light lagers) are hopped at very low levels and are far from cloying.

Hermit said:

Let's bring this back around to answer the original question. If the residual dextrins aren't sweet, then why are hops need to keep the beer from being cloying? What sugars aren't the yeast eating that makes this necessary? If I use only base grains can I get by with no hops and not have a cloying beer? What is the malty flavor coming from. Most of what we are washing out of the grain is sugar in one form or another. Serious question.

Click to expand...

In my experience, the more malt you use, the more IBUs you need to balance out the beer. Hefeweizen is not hopped very high, but it also uses very light malts, and is at most 5% ABV. Wee Heavys, which are very malty beers also are around 7-8%ABV. Those beers usually have ~25-30IBUs.

Also, you need to realize malty doesn't necessarily mean sweet. You can really pick up the maltiness in a beer like Victory Prima Pils although its not a sweet beer.

Yes, you could make a beer with only base malt and not have a sweet beer (to a certain gravity). You will proably want some sort of spice in there, even if you don't use hops.

Sean said:

It is worth noting that the combination of mouthfeel and the aroma of sweetness can result in the perception of sweetness, even when a beer is totally dry.

And hops do add to the fruity, floral aroma of beer.

Click to expand...

Very true. Everyone who has tried my 10-10-10, which is a 13% beer that finished at 1.000 and has 70 IBUs describes it as sweet.

There are so many things that go into our preception of sweetness. Body, alcohol, FG, temperature, carbonation, or lack thereof, hop character, IBUs, types of malt used, whether you have a cold, and probably much more.

remilard said:

Your assumption that unhopped beer would necessarily be cloying is incorrect.

Many beers (hefeweizen, american light lagers) are hopped at very low levels and are far from cloying.

Click to expand...

How does giving an example of lightly hopped beers equal unhopped beers? American light lagers don't have much need for counterbalance because their isn't much of a grain bill to start with so a low hop level is all that is needed in these low barley beers. See post above on the hefe.

Last night as I was upgrading my computer I picked up Brewing Classic Styles and was reading through lager recipes. Even in recipes that use only base malt Jamil cautions about residual malt sweetness. He throws that term around A LOT in the lager section even when talking about styles that use only base malts. Even though the residual sugars may not be a 'sucrose' type sweetness, it is still a sweetness. It isn't 100% neutral if you can taste/perceive it. Here are our choices. Salty, bitter, sweet, sour and savory. Some growing argument for fat.

Edcculus said:

Also, you need to realize malty doesn't necessarily mean sweet. You can really pick up the maltiness in a beer like Victory Prima Pils although its not a sweet beer.

Click to expand...

See above post. We have limited categories to classify taste. I have come to realize that some people are what they are because they have an ability, call it gift if you will, that most of us simply don't have. People like Jamil probably have a more refined palate than most of us by birth, not through practice. We like to believe that we can work to achieve anything we want bad enough. This is simply the pipe dream that keeps us going.

Lactose doesn't have much taste to me. Certainly not a sucrose type of sweetness but we can't classify what flavor it has as anything other than sweet because it comes from a sugar and triggers the sweet taste buds on our tongue. If we don't classify malt as a sweet flavor, then which of the other categories would it fit into?

Hermit said:

If we don't classify malt as a sweet flavor, then which of the other categories would it fit into?

Click to expand...

You are forgetting that when people talk about "taste," they are not simply referring to tastebuds, as smell is 90% of "taste." Malts have a lot of volatile aromas from caramelization or maillard reactions if kilned. This is most like the aroma that comes from the browned crust on a freshly baked loaf of bread.

rocketman768 said:

You are forgetting that when people talk about "taste," they are not simply referring to tastebuds, as smell is 90% of "taste." Malts have a lot of volatile aromas from caramelization or maillard reactions if kilned. This is most like the aroma that comes from the browned crust on a freshly baked loaf of bread.

Click to expand...

My second brew was an extract stout that didn't attenuate worth crap. It gets past my nose just fine. It is the palate that makes it a cooking beer. Makes a nice "Sweet" Stout Kraut....

Quite a discussion. Although most of it seems off topic, I find it very interesting. I know that crystal malts can add sweetness of varying degrees but I don't believe I have really been able to nail down exactly what causes it all of the time. I vary mash temps just like most AG brewers in an attempt to affect mouthfeel and sweetness/maltiness but I do not always see a direct correlation between the two. I could believe from my experiences that it is a complex relationship amongst many variables.

As far as some people being born with better taste buds; that is most certainly the case. Everyone person that works in my kitchen (I am a Chef) has the natural ability to taste various flavors accutely. For someone it will be sweet, for someone it will be salty. The real trick to getting them to use it properly is to train their tongue to taste all flavors simultaneously and differentiate each one. I guess my point is that no matter what you are born with, it still needs experience and training to perfect it. I think that means we need to continue training our taste buds by continuing to brew and drink!

rjwhite41 said:

I know that crystal malts can add sweetness of varying degrees but I don't believe I have really been able to nail down exactly what causes it all of the time.

Click to expand...

One maltster, in reply to a recent query: Caramel Malts usually fall into the high 60's range as far as percent fermentable extract.

Declined to be more specific.

Hermit said:

One maltster, in reply to a recent query: Caramel Malts usually fall into the high 60's range as far as percent fermentable extract.

Declined to be more specific.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the degree of malting affect that? For example, wouldn't a lighter kilned crystal contain more fermentables than a darker kilned one.

Hermit said:

One maltster, in reply to a recent query: Caramel Malts usually fall into the high 60's range as far as percent fermentable extract.

Declined to be more specific.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of the infermentability of crystallized malt is the byproducts from the caramelization reactions. As far as I know, caramelization is still poorly understood, but involves isomerization, various re-arranging of the carbon ring structures, and condensation. For example, two monosaccharides can join to form difructose, which is definitely not fermentable.

rocketman768 said:

when people talk about "taste," they are not simply referring to tastebuds, as smell is 90% of "taste."

Click to expand...

For this exact reason, Hops can make a beer seem sweet.

A DFH 60 clone I made had an ending gravity of 1.008, yet it has rich mouthfeel and seems sweet. Why? The grain bill is 2-row and 6 oz of 60L. Certainly nothing that would add too much unfermentables.

rjwhite41 said:

Wouldn't the degree of malting affect that? For example, wouldn't a lighter kilned crystal contain more fermentables than a darker kilned one.

Click to expand...

Maybe Cargill will give up more information if people keep asking more questions:
http://www.specialtymalts.com/maltster/

Or take down the page.

rocketman768 said:

I think a lot of the infermentability of crystallized malt is the byproducts from the caramelization reactions. As far as I know, caramelization is still poorly understood, but involves isomerization, various re-arranging of the carbon ring structures, and condensation. For example, two monosaccharides can join to form difructose, which is definitely not fermentable.

Click to expand...

I don't know how percent compares to yield numbers but high 70's low 80's seem to be the norm for base malt? I guess I never thought much about it. Made me wonder if candy syrup is repeatedly heated to get more sugars 'converted' but it it seems to have the same 'high 60's' as the malts?


http://www.beersmith.com/forum/index.php?topic=1318.0

Name: Dark Belgian Candi Syrup
Type: Extract
Origin:
Supplier: Dark Candi Inc

Yield: 67.39 %
Potential: 1.031

I wonder if this information together implies a limit to the flavor compounds you can form? Just did a quick Google to see what flavor compounds are formed. Hundreds. Including Diacetyl! Interesting read if you followed any of the candy syrup threads debating caramelized vs Maillard reaction. The line doesn't seem to be that clear cut. : http://www.food-info.net/uk/colour/caramel.htm

Hermit said:

I wonder if this information together implies a limit to the flavor compounds you can form?

Click to expand...

No. You can just keep heating it (like any other food) and it'll all turn to charcoal (carbon) because all the hydrogens and oxygens will hook up and float away as water vapor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltol

Bam. Found in roasted malts, imparts sweetness, and is used as an artificial flavor enhancer for that exact purpose.