AG vs Extract

[kenpotf]

I just did my first beer on Sunday this past week. I used an extract kit, but I've been reading the forums about AG and watching videos. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the only difference between extract and AG brewing is the fact that you're making your extract and not getting it from a bottle. Is this correct?

The real advantage that I see is that you're not limited to flavors that you get in the bottle, but instead you can make your own interesting extracts my mixing grain types. Is that right?

 

[MalFet]

Kinda sorta. Certainly there are more grist options with grain than with extract, but there's more than just that. There are other factors that all grain gives you control over, particularly wort fermentability. By manipulating mash temperature, you can produce a drier or sweeter beer.

Others also claim that the dehydration process used to make extract leaves a noticeable taste, but this is controversial.

 

[rycov]

i don't notice the extract "twang" that i hear about. maybe my palate isn't very sensitive. w/e i do like the all grain process, but still do extract too. it just depends on how much time i have on brew day.

 

[jfowler1]

I second what Malfet said about control of composition, and I'll give an adder.

There is a world of grain that is not available as extract, yet is useless in a steep.

Belgian Biscuit and Aromatic, US Victory and Special Roast, UK Amber and Brown, all have to be mashed for conversion. You can crush them for a steep, but without diastatic power, you are simply leaching starch. I can also throw every flaked grain (Corn, Wheat, Flaked Barley) onto that list. These character grains can have a big impact on a recipe, but are useless when steeped. Until pretty recently, Munich would have also fell into that catagory. Sticking with the base malt theme, Rye and Vienna are also unavailable as extract (at least, I have never seem them available).

Also, there have even been experiments conducted that showed how crystal malts (which may be steeped with decent results) yield dramatically different levels of fermentability when they are included in a mash with a base malt. I had been under the common belief that the sugars from crystal malt were completely unfermentable until I read through data that really bucked that convention.

Naturally, a stove-top mini-mash can remedy these issues to some extent, but IMO, if you are willing to dedicate time and effort to a half-hearted mini-mash, you might as well jump to an all-grain set-up and get the full experience.

Joe

 

[Quazado]

You are also boiling your entire batch volume with all grain. Whereas in extract you'd do a partial boil and add makeup water. So, for 5 gallon batches you generally want about a 7.5 gallon boil pot if you don't already have one.

 

[passedpawn]

it seems like the only difference between extract and AG brewing is the fact that you're making your extract and not getting it from a bottle. Is this correct?

The real advantage that I see is that you're not limited to flavors that you get in the bottle, but instead you can make your own interesting extracts my mixing grain types. Is that right?

Yes and yes.

Another advantage is being able to manipulate the sweetness of your beer by controlling the temp of the mash. Low temps (i.e., 150) favor a very fermentable wort. High temps (i.e., 160) favor a wort that is less fermentable, leaving residual sweetness in the final beer.

 

[BrewerinBR]

I started with kits and extract but moved to all grain because I liked the control that all grain provides. The mashing process is fun and lends itself to experimentation. I have used the exact same grain bill, hops and hop schedule and yeast to produce two very different beers just by changing the mash process and timing and both were good. There were the same color and ABV % but they tasted very different and had different head character. I am not sure that could be done using extract but maybe?

 

[jfowler1]

Yes and yes.

Another advantage is being able to manipulate the sweetness of your beer by controlling the temp of the mash. Low temps (i.e., 150) favor a very fermentable wort. High temps (i.e., 160) favor a wort that is less fermentable, leaving residual sweetness in the final beer.

I completely agree that a lower mash temperature will give you a more fermentable wort (and less residual dextrines), and that a higher mash temperature will give you a less fermentable wort (and leave more dextrines in the finished beer), but I do not think that it is correct to say that dextrines = sweetness or that sweetness = body.

In other words, yes, dextrines = body, but like I said, body does not equal sweetness. A Belgian Triple tastes "sweet" to me, but it is typically dry as a bone. A Munich Helles tastes "malty", but again, finishes very dry.

Granted, sometimes body and sweetness correlate (like in an English Barley Wine) but as I pointed out, sometimes they don't.

On the other hand, taste malto dextrine powder. That stuff is pure "body". Is it sweet?

To be honest, I am not sure how you actually manipulate "sweetness", but I am pretty sure that mash temps are not the answer. If I had to guess, I would say it is more correlated to recipe than process. For one example, a lot of crystal will probably give you a lot of sweetness, but I don't think the level of sweetness will be dependent on your mash temperature.

To summarize, I do not think sweetness/maltiness/body are synonyms.... but I could be wrong.

Joe

 

[CidahMastah]

I completely agree that a lower mash temperature will give you a more fermentable wort (and less residual dextrines), and that a higher mash temperature will give you a less fermentable wort (and leave more dextrines in the finished beer), but I do not think that it is correct to say that dextrines = sweetness or that sweetness = body.

In other words, yes, dextrines = body, but like I said, body does not equal sweetness. A Belgian Triple tastes "sweet" to me, but it is typically dry as a bone. A Munich Helles tastes "malty", but again, finishes very dry.

Granted, sometimes body and sweetness correlate (like in an English Barley Wine) but as I pointed out, sometimes they don't.

On the other hand, taste malto dextrine powder. That stuff is pure "body". Is it sweet?

To be honest, I am not sure how you actually manipulate "sweetness", but I am pretty sure that mash temps are not the answer. If I had to guess, I would say it is more correlated to recipe than process. For one example, a lot of crystal will probably give you a lot of sweetness, but I don't think the level of sweetness will be dependent on your mash temperature.

To summarize, I do not think sweetness/maltiness/body are synonyms.... but I could be wrong.

Joe

I think you are splitting hairs between perceptible sweetness and actual sweetness. By manipulating the mash you are manipulating actual sweetness by increasing or decreasing the fermentable sugars in the wort. Other aspects of the recipe, i.e. hops, specialty malts (black patent, chocolate malt) etc., may reduce the perceptible sweetness of the brew. i.e. using astringency to offset the sweetness for a perceived balanced beer (not cloyingly sweet, not overly bitter and so on).

 

[MalFet]

I completely agree that a lower mash temperature will give you a more fermentable wort (and less residual dextrines), and that a higher mash temperature will give you a less fermentable wort (and leave more dextrines in the finished beer), but I do not think that it is correct to say that dextrines = sweetness or that sweetness = body.

In other words, yes, dextrines = body, but like I said, body does not equal sweetness. A Belgian Triple tastes "sweet" to me, but it is typically dry as a bone. A Munich Helles tastes "malty", but again, finishes very dry.

Granted, sometimes body and sweetness correlate (like in an English Barley Wine) but as I pointed out, sometimes they don't.

On the other hand, taste malto dextrine powder. That stuff is pure "body". Is it sweet?

To be honest, I am not sure how you actually manipulate "sweetness", but I am pretty sure that mash temps are not the answer. If I had to guess, I would say it is more correlated to recipe than process. For one example, a lot of crystal will probably give you a lot of sweetness, but I don't think the level of sweetness will be dependent on your mash temperature.

To summarize, I do not think sweetness/maltiness/body are synonyms.... but I could be wrong.

Joe

Well, sure, but I don't think passedpawn was implying otherwise. Given two equivalent recipes varying only in mash temp, the higher mash temp will produce a sweeter beer. That's not to say that there aren't other things that contribute to the perception of sweetness...of course there are. But that's not what's at stake here.

 

[jfowler1]

Given two equivalent recipes varying only in mash temp, the higher mash temp will produce a sweeter beer.

I'll go with that, and maybe I misunderstood passedpawn's remarks.

On first reading, it just sounded to me like dextrines = sweetness, which is a very common belief. I just wanted to show that the "rule" does not always work.

That said, if I was explaining mashing to a curious neighbor, I would have said the exact same thing - "Higher mash temps give you a sweeter beer". I just think that in a forum like this, under the all-grain section, we can get a bit deeper.

Joe