All grain vs extract

[eyalius]

After one year of extract beers I consider to try all grain.

1. Why? Don't know, everybody around me tells me it's better. Is it?

2. What are the time differences between the two processes?

3. Are there Taste differences?

Thank you

 

[Transamguy77]

1. I think "better" is a relative term, I have found a better tasting beer compared to extract in my personal beers but I've had some extract beers that if the brewer didn't tell me I wouldn't have known.

2. There is at least double the time to brew AG vs extract, if it takes you 2 hours now it will take 4ish hours for an AG batch.

3. I personally noticed a difference in taste on my AG beers vs my extract beers.

 

[Build]

It can be like the difference between baking a premade pizza and making a pizza from scratch. Both can be good, but the scratch made will have differences you make and you can make it your own. Think of all the different tasting craft beers available to us now.

All grain will generally take more time, but not all that much depending on process. I started doing 3 vessel all grain which took most of a day to complete. Now I do BIAB and my brew day is 3.5-4 hours. My efficiency is 75-80%+ and I do 5 and 10 gallon batches up to 1.100 gravity. If you're considering all grain, read up on BIAB. It's great and you won't need to add a lot of equipment.

The taste differences will be the ones you make in your grain bill. They can be pretty endless and amazing.

Good luck and let us know how it's going.

 

[FloppyKnockers]

1. Why? Don't know, everybody around me tells me it's better. Is it?
Relative. I like the process better. I feel I have more control of the brew. Extract is best for quick brew-day and turnaround times. You can get super light with all grain...not so much with extract.

2. What are the time differences between the two processes?
Like what was mentioned before, about double. My extract days are ~2 hours. ~4.5 for all grain (including clean-up). What adds the extra time is the mashing. It's really just a lot of hurry up and wait, but extra time nonetheless.

3. Are there Taste differences?
Ehhhhhh... Most of the time I'd say yes. Other times I'd say no. I've done side-by-side tests with the same recipe and the major difference was the color. I also have personal recipes that I only do extract because the all-grain one didn't come out to my liking. Vice versa for other recipes. I have an APA that just doesn't taste right doing the extract version.

 

[mongoose33]

After one year of extract beers I consider to try all grain.

1. Why? Don't know, everybody around me tells me it's better. Is it?

I'm producing what I consider to be better and tastier beer with it. Is that due to better overall processes, or all-grain? All-grain is my bet.

2. What are the time differences between the two processes?

I use a mash tun. Probably an extra 20 minutes to crush (if you buy already-crushed grain from LHBS or online, no time used, and probably another....maybe hour and 15 minutes to mash it and vorlauf. The actual vorlauf takes longer, but you can start the boil with what you draw off first, and as it heats, keep adding to it with the sparge.

So call it...1.5-2 hours more, perhaps.

3. Are there Taste differences?

Yes. In my limited experience, my all-grain tastes better. In fact, my last two were of a quality that I'd pay money for them in a bar.

My 2 cents. If 50 of us respond, you'll have a dollar.

 

[mtyquinn]

A skilled brewer making extract can make a beer that tastes as good as all grain. However, i feel all grain gives you more control and generally speaking those that dive into all grain usually gain valuable experience and eventually can come back to extract and make a kick butt beer.

 

[philosofool]

After one year of extract beers I consider to try all grain.

1. Why? Don't know, everybody around me tells me it's better. Is it?

2. What are the time differences between the two processes?

3. Are there Taste differences?

Thank you

1. I think it is more fun. It smells better. You have a greater range of ingredients (though the difference gets smaller all the time.) You have more control of fermentability, which matters for a few styles. It saves money--you need about 10 to 12 pounds of base malt for a typical beer, and that usually costs about $1 per pound. The equivalent in DME is usually twice as much. The added equipment costs will take about ten batches to recoup.

2. About 1 1/2 more hours for all grain. You have to heat larger volumes of water and the mashing process takes 1 hour and extracting takes about 30 minutes. With extract plus steeped grains, it's just 30 minutes and you're dealing with a little less water. There are also a few more things to clean with AG, though it can be done while the wort is boiling.

3. It depends on the beer. If you do it wrong, AG can lead to off characteristics including DMS and astringency. But I wouldn't try an extract barleywine. I mash my farmhouse ales at 145 for an hour or more, then mash out, to get wonderful attenuation that's impossible with extract. I mash my session beers at 158-160 so I can use a little more malt to get more flavor but less attenuation to keep the alcohol down.

I've been all grain brewing for 10 years. I love it. I almost never make an extract batch. But I think people who advocate all-grain can exaggerate improvements, especially in standard strength beers. If you want to give it a try, see if you can locate someone that will let you borrow their equipment or brew with you. Decide whether you like it, then throw down the cash, the garage space and go for it.

 

[lslbrew]

If you are comparing partial boil extract to all grain, then yes it takes more time. The time is mostly spent in the time to heat and cool the extra water. With the proper set up it does not have to take much longer to all grain vs full boil extract even using a 3 tier system. I think I got about the same level of improvement going to full boil extract as I did going from full boil extract to all grain. There was nothing wrong with my extract beer but I like the all grain a bit better (flavor and cost).

Here is how my all grain is not taking me much longer than full boil extract. With extract, if you steep grains you have 30 minutes into it already. Mashing is 60 minutes so you are only looking at an extra 30 minutes here. My mash tun is a cooler with a full size brew in bag as the filter. No false bottom, no screen. I can drain my cooler in a couple of minutes. During the mash I am heating the sparge water so there is no extra time (it overlaps). I put in the sparge water for 15 minutes. During that time I am also heating the boil pot with the 1st part of wort. By the time I drain the 2nd time the 1st half is almost at boil. Plus, the 2nd batch is at 170, not 150 so I am starting at a higher heat to get the full volume up to a boil.

Not sure how clear my process is, but if you think about overlapping processes and making your brew day efficient, it is not that much more time.

 

[madscientist451]

Islbrew (above) pretty much covered the time issue, but the big factor to consider is what your beer tastes like. If you are happy with your extract brew, keep doing that. But if you want to stretch out and discover what other flavor options are out there, go all grain. You can always bounce back to extract if you are short on time or want to rebrew something you've enjoyed before.

 

[boydster]

1) A lot of people make the boxed-cake-to-cake-from-scratch (or frozen pizza or TV dinner or what-have-you) but I think that's really kind of an overstatement. Maybe more like buying some pizza dough instead of making your own, but you are still building your own beer on top of the extract - you choose the steeping grains, the hops & hop schedule, the yeast... So there is one extra element that you really gain control over with all-grain that can improve the quality of your beer. Namely, the mash. If you can do a good job maintaining the mash temp, and take control of your water (which may involve paying some attention to the Brew Science forum to some degree) then you can do well with AG. But a poorly done mash is not going to result in better beer than using extract. And that's really the only difference. You are making unhopped wort before the boil, and whether you do it with ground up barley or with LME/DME and steeping grains, the end result is still unhopped wort. It's still on you to get things right from that point forward. When it comes to people telling you AG is "better" than extract brewing, in the words of Flavor Flav: Don't believe the hype! It does not necessarily follow that AG will absolutely result in better beer than extract. Process matters.

2) If you do a one hour mash, as opposed to a 20-30 minute steep, then you are by definition adding at least 30 minutes to your brew day. You'll probably be using more water, meaning a longer time to get to the boil, so plan on adding at least an hour to your day. Then, if it's your first AG brew, double it, because you gotta learn stuff and that takes time. And add another hour buffer for "just in case." That may well be an hour of kicking back and relaxing with a brewski because you nailed your brew day, but hey... at that point, you've earned it

3) The answer: it depends. I mean, with practical certainty it can be said that there will be taste differences from one brew to the next even if you are just doing extract. And with AG, you are throwing some new variables into the mix. So, yes, a beer you used to brew with extract that you try to brew AG will almost certainly taste different. But really, the only difference is that you are controlling the wort. And, of course, the freshness - old, stale extract won't be an issue to worry about.


I like the beer I made with extract, and I like the beer I make AG. I think I make better beer now than I did when I used extract, but I don't think that's just because of the extract... I've learned, made mistakes, kept notes, honed in my process, and taken time to develop as a brewer. If I were to recreate an extract brew today from a recipe I used in the past, I am confident I would have better results than when I first brewed it.

If you are comfortable with your extract process and itching to try something new, try AG. It's not rocket science, and just like when you first started with extract, you'll probably worry more than you need to about whether you are messing it up or not. But you'll make beer, you'll learn, and you'll be better prepared for the next brew day.

On the other hand, if you are happy with you beer now and don't want to complicate brew day any further, don't add the extra stress. It's a hobby, and no matter what, you'll have better beer than if you went and grabbed a 30-pack of Molsen, eh?

 

[agrazela]

My 2 cents on the "process vs ingredients" debate.

I switched to mashing a couple years ago. First few AG batches were only so-so until I dialed in my processes, water building, temp controls during ferment, etc. And not too long ago I made the leap to kegging.

Just very recently I got the itch to keep the pipeline flowing, but knew I'd have a limited time that day, so for the hell of it I did an all-extract (Ultralight liquid extract) batch of a Simcoe/Amarillo pale ale...didn't even use steeping grains. I did use some cane sugar to cheat a few points, though.

I did use everything I'd learned about water building, temp control, etc. No excessive lag, no stuck ferment--even using dry-pitched BRY-97, because I'm a glutton for punishment! Kegged up a few weeks ago, tapped that keg this past weekend, and I'll be damned if that isn't a really, really good beer without any of the "extract twang" or "cloying sweetness" or any of the other "faults" I got early on and that people often attribute to extract. Even my wife likes it, and being a wife and all, she's very, very hard to please. Only things IMO it is a bit low on are malt complexity and head retention.

So yes, I agree, AG (or PM) give more flexibility than extract...but there's absolutely nothing wrong with (good fresh) extract.

(And I've kind of always known this, since I've long "cheated" extract into my higher gravity AG brews...PM, more accurately)

 

[Rhetorik]

All-grain feels more "authentic". I like that. I'm more able to say "I made this" when talking to friends.

I find that with AG you're more able to brew true to style. With extracts you can come close, but you'll never get as light-coloured a beer (if making a pilsner, for example) as with AG.

I also like AG because it makes for a nice, relaxing day for me. I sit on my patio with a beer, a book, and a cigar while the kettle's boiling and when the grain is mashing. It's nice.

Plus, the cost of ingredients per batch is wayyyy cheaper.