Belgian beers...without candi sugar?

Belgian beers are among my favorite styles, but I never like the thought of adding a simple sugar to a recipe just to increase the alcohol potential. What if I left out the candi sugar? I'm not sure I'll actually do it this time since this will be my first Belgian to make (I'm making an Ommegang Hennepin clone). I think leaving out the candi sugar should not change the flavor since it does not contribute to the flavor profile...I could be wrong.

Maybe the flavor of the beer would be changed due to the fact that the OG will be lower and the yeast not have the potential to produce flavors (not just alcohol) that are characteristic of the beer in question.

Thoughts?

As I understand it, part of the reason for the addition of the sugars is that the additional alcohol thins the beer. Otherwise the beer would be too thick and too heavy for the style. Not to say you shouldn't try it -you may find you like it better without.

i think a large reason for the sugar is to dry the beer out - you might lose that quality a bit. i wonder if mashing just a hair lower, but with more grains, would give you a more representative style without the sugar addition...

i added sugar to my tripel that i just bottled and glad i did - came out exactly like i hoped (except darker)

Then it wouldn't be the same beer. Why the hate on adding sugar to styles that call for it? It's not like you are openning a can of cooper's and adding 10 pounds of sugar....Belgian beers are a style that are supposed to have simple sugars in it. It raises the abv, but it also cuts down on some of the body.

That whole thing about not adding sugar or else you make "cidery" beer is one of those little "chestnuts" that noobs repeat without thinking deeper about it. When we talk about it being a bad thing, is when the ration of sugar to malt quite high, like frat boys trying to bump up their coopers can...yeah that's a bad thing...but we're not talking about that here, we're talking about an acceptable brewing process for belgian beers/

I mean do you like Belgian beers? Are they crappy tasting because of the simple sugars that are added? If you like them, that's how they achieved the beer you like. It's kind of illogical, not to want to do the correct thing for the style of beer.

*shrug*

Slurm said:

As I understand it, part of the reason for the addition of the sugars is that the additional alcohol thins the beer. Otherwise the beer would be too thick and too heavy for the style. Not to say you shouldn't try it -you may find you like it better without.

Click to expand...

+1

That's exactly what I have read as well. If you made a beer that is 8 or 10% with malted grains alone, the beer would be really heavy. Although I would bet it would be delicious either way..

brian74 said:

I think leaving out the candi sugar should not change the flavor since it does not contribute to the flavor profile...I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

um...maybe with clear candi sugar...but do you not think that any of the darker grades of sugars have flavor? Have you not tasted caramel, or brown sugar or mollases or treacle or butter scotch...especially simple caramel which is just white sugar boiled dark? You don't think there's any flavor to them?

The beer would be different for sure. The darker syrups add a lot of flavor to the beer although the lighter ones don't add much if anything. The added sugars also help to dry the beer out more so than you would get with all grain. In some of the stronger styles you would miss out a whole host of flavors caused by the yeasts reaction to the sugar, the flavor of the syrup, and last but not least the alcohol content and warmth. Alcohol changes the way your tastebuds interpret the flavor of the beer and changes the "mouthfeel." Not saying it wouldn't still be good beer but it would be different.

Revvy, you made some good points about the candi sugar not being equal to the ratio of the Cooper's kits...makes sense.

Just because someone is considering changing a recipe does not mean they are hating on a particular style; after all, that is what homebrewing is all about. Have you never changed a recipe that made it not true to style? Very likely so.

And the candi sugar in question is clear. That is why I speculated it would not contribute flavor. Of course, a dark substance will have flavor of its own.

brian74 said:

And the candi sugar in question is clear. That is why I speculated it would not contribute flavor.

Click to expand...

But it still affects the body, like others have said, if you replace the sugar to equal the same og with malt, you will have a heavier beer. If you leave the sugar out entirely you also will have a heavier beer, but with a lower og/abv than your recipe. It's your choice but you won't be getting the same balance with the rest of the recipe by leaving it out.

If you don't use sugar, you won't end up with a proper Belgian Strong Ale. Most of the really good ones use quite a lot of it, actually (more than 10%, some 20%). You like Duvel? More than 15%. Westmalle Tripel? 20%. (going from memory here)

It's not a question of changing the recipe "because that's what homebrewing's all about". It sounds like you haven't brewed one yet. Brew it right, THEN tweak it if you want. And sugar is an essential part of Belgian Strong Ales. It's not about raising the alcohol, it's about making the beer less sweet and thinning it a bit. In Brew Like a Monk, which you should read, they constantly say it's about making the beer digestible or easier on the stomach.

Anyway, don't fear sugar in styles that call for it. I've brewed many Belgians and have used a lot of just plain old table sugar in them with fantastic results. Give it a go. It's an essential ingredient in making Belgian Strong Ales.

MattHollingsworth said:

It sounds like you haven't brewed one yet. Brew it right, THEN tweak it if you want.

Click to expand...

If you read the original post, you will find that I indicate this very thing.

brian74 said:

If you read the original post, you will find that I indicate this very thing.

Click to expand...

I did read the original post, then all of the replies and thought I remembered it being your first. Shoulda double checked. But anyway, this being your first, you should do it right and use sugar. I've made Belgians with less and more sugar and the ones with more are better. The ones with less are sweeter, naturally, and just don't capture that character that I find in my favorite Belgians. Among my least favorite are the very sweet Belgians like Gulden Draak and Kasteel.

Anyway, whatever you decide, just go into it with your eyes open. Sugar is not the demon it was once painted as in the old days. It goes really well with some styles, Belgians being chief among them.

One point not yet mentioned is that simple sugars, particularly glucose, have been shown to enhance ester production. A good thing in most Belgian styles.

Certainly adding sugars will likely result in a lower FG, but there are other ways to get a low FG, even in a big beer. I've made all malt Belgian beers (mostly based on Saisons) the have been up to 10% ABV, that tasted every bit as dry as the lagers I brew. These are beers finishing around 1.006 - 1.008. With the right mash schedule and yeast strain this is not difficult to do.

If it was simply to give a lower FG, then why aren't the BMC brewers adding a bunch of sugar to their beers? Their beers, especially the light ones certainly have very low FG. Sugar is way cheaper than malt. I suspect the resulting flavor profile is off (makes it taste not like BMC), or they would do it

I actually am not a fan of the "helps dry a beer out" statement. It is too simplistic. It is part of the reason, but not the only reason. It is an easy way to get a drier beer, but I'm suspicious that it's role is promoting ester formation is equally, if not more important. Maybe it should be said that adding sugars to Belgians styles "promotes the formation of certain flavors and helps to dry a beer out"

I do add sugars when I do Abbey styles

pjj2ba said:

Maybe it should be said that adding sugars to Belgians styles "promotes the formation of certain flavors and helps to dry a beer out"

Click to expand...

I'll probably be adding that to my answer now.

pjj2ba said:

If it was simply to give a lower FG, then why aren't the BMC brewers adding a bunch of sugar to their beers? Their beers, especially the light ones certainly have very low FG. Sugar is way cheaper than malt. I suspect the resulting flavor profile is off (makes it taste not like BMC), or they would do it

Click to expand...

Because corn and rice are cheaper than refined sugar.

Bokonon said:

Because corn and rice are cheaper than refined sugar.

Click to expand...

Actually if you add in the cost to make the rice and corn usable as a brewing adjunct, the cost difference is probably the same as refinning cane or beet sugar and making IT usuable...in order to use corn or rice, EITHER it's got to be pre-gelatinized or flaked, OR a cereal mash needs to be done. That's added energy, time and labor costs.

That's why the idea that BMC added corn and rice in the 1800's to cut costs is patently false and historically innaccurate, it actually made a bottle of budweiser the most expensive beer, actually costing about 18 dollars a bottle (in modern dollars) which was quite a price leap both in terms of production costs and retail, considering in 1860 a schooner of ale and heavier lagers cost a nickle.

Even today in homebrewing flaked maize is no cheaper than any other grain. Have you actually priced it? I just did. For example rebel brewer has it for 1.50 a pound which the same price as most of their grains. And it is actually 20 or 30 cents MORE EXPENSIVE than 2row basemalt. So if your using it as you claim a cheap replacement for 2 row in a beer your not saving any money. Just the opposite same as it was when balling and schwartz developed the process and taught it to the old German brewmasters in St. Louis. It wasn't done as a cost cutting measure but as a way to thin the body to get away from heavier beers that was falling out of favor and to balance out the haziness associated with the 6row that we were using domestically.

My second batch was what falls into the category of Belgian Pale. It was straight Pilsner malt extract with yeast and hops but on the lighter side. I love it especially as it has aged. It is roughly 4.5% ABV. So it is on the low end of Belgian Pales. Still a Belgian and has the spice and cloves flavor.