Bringing 3.2% beer back!

[beersk]

I decided to take a swing at a 3.2% ABV beer using a Rye Pale Ale I normally brew to about 5% ABV. Results: solid rye flavor, but slightly thinner than the original. I also noted head retention is somewhat degraded. Otherwise, really turned out well.

Some specifics:

Malt bill:
Pale ale malt:68%
Flaked rye: 17%
Munich 10l: 12%
Caramel 40l: 3%
(20% less malt than the 5% version; slight increase in Munich and used pale ale base malt in lieu of two row)

Mash: 160 degrees F for 60 minutes
IBU: 19.7
US 05 yeast
OG: 1.034
FG: 1.013
ABV: 3.2%

I may try adding some wheat malt or carapils to the malt bill to help with head retention. My impression is distinct flavor of rye makes it a good candidate for a low alcohol beer. I’d welcome any thoughts on improving this recipe or the process.

Looks like a fine recipe to me. You could probably even up the amount of C40 to 5% or even 7%. Or up the Munich from 12 to 20% to give it more oomph. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't change much to get more body. Mashing at 160F should do the trick. You probably don't need to mash for 60 minutes; 45 minutes should be more than enough.

I could see how a rye pale ale would work well for a low abv beer. Maybe using a yeast like Wy1272 or something that leaves more body would help too.

 

[Gary25]

Looks like a fine recipe to me. You could probably even up the amount of C40 to 5% or even 7%. Or up the Munich from 12 to 20% to give it more oomph. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't change much to get more body. Mashing at 160F should do the trick. You probably don't need to mash for 60 minutes; 45 minutes should be more than enough.

I could see how a rye pale ale would work well for a low abv beer. Maybe using a yeast like Wy1272 or something that leaves more body would help too.

Had to laugh at myself: The mash was for 45 minutes—something I picked up reading this thread. Thanks for catching it.

I like the idea of increasing the Munich and will also try the carapils or wheat. Yeast change is a good idea as well. Ringwood Ale (Wyeast 1187) is one I’ve used before (nice flavors) might be another option to try.

Will be a while until the next batch of this as we have about 8 gallons to get through…nice problem to have….good thing it low ABV!

 

[Gary25]

Rye Pale Ale in all its glory.

 

[mashdar]

I decided to take a swing at a 3.2% ABV beer using a Rye Pale Ale I normally brew to about 5% ABV. Results: solid rye flavor, but slightly thinner than the original. I also noted head retention is somewhat degraded. Otherwise, really turned out well.

Some specifics:

Malt bill:
Pale ale malt:68%
Flaked rye: 17%
Munich 10l: 12%
Caramel 40l: 3%
(20% less malt than the 5% version; slight increase in Munich and used pale ale base malt in lieu of two row)

Mash: 160 degrees F for 60 minutes
IBU: 19.7
US 05 yeast
OG: 1.034
FG: 1.013
ABV: 3.2%

I may try adding some wheat malt or carapils to the malt bill to help with head retention. My impression is distinct flavor of rye makes it a good candidate for a low alcohol beer. I’d welcome any thoughts on improving this recipe or the process.

For body and head, maybe swap 2:1 carapils (or similar) for pale malt? (2:1 should roughly keep ABV static while upping OG/FG)

 

[Bramling Cross]

I am beginning to believe that is really just isn't possible. The alcohol makes up a huge flavor component of the style/beer even if we don't "perceive" it. As mentioned above, without it, the beer tends to become grainy tasting. I'm noticing this more and more as I brew these low abv beers. Body is not a problem, that's easy to keep in low abv, but that flavor component is huge, I feel.

I write the following with a light hand because there is a danger that you could interpret this as me suggesting that you're not a competent brewer. That's not at all what I'm trying suggest. Instead, I'm highlighting a few insights that I stumbled upon over many years of trying to learn how to make session ales that are just as satisfying as their more substantial brethren.

Could you describe a bit more what you mean by "grainy?" It's really easy to over-sparge session beers and if you don't have solid control over your pH, things can get out of hand in a real hurry.

Especially with my tiny UK ales, I've written new Brewsmith mash profiles for UK ales. The goal of these profiles is the reduction of my sparge water budget via the use of a second infusion in the mash tun (strike @ 148F, infuse to 155F). The more I brew, the more firmly I hold the opinion that shifting your water budget away from the sparge tank and toward the mash tun results in better beer. When it comes to smaller beers, I think the effect is especially noticeable.

Also, I've found that gently over-acidifying your sparge water yields improvements. For example, I generally like to mash at pH 5.4 and over-acidify my sparge such that my entire runnings, pre-boil land at or below pH 5.3. Again, this seems to help to produce a superior beer. I brew with tap, so this is easy to accomplish. If you're using RO, this might not be feasible.

I'm really sorry about bringing this up, but it is worth mentioning! Have you goofed around with LODO? Once you've done it a couple of times it's easy to do, cheap, and it really does make a tangible difference. Also, you don't have to go full LODO right out of the gate. I gradually introduced LODO techniques into my brewery and continued adding them as I saw tangible improvements. In fact, I'm still not fully LODO compliant (*snicker* Ah, those guys!) because I refuse to give up my old copper IC--it's paid for, it does a great job, and it doesn't need replacing. Thus far, LODO has been cheap and easy. I prefer to keep it that way.

Wrapping up, I suppose you can think of it this way: Your brewery isn't a sausage machine. The neat thing about sausage machines is that no matter what you put into them, it comes out sausage on the other side, right? Breweries aren't at all like that! It's important to adapt your brewery to optimize the beer you're trying to brew. I certainly don't brew my tiny beers the same way that I brew my IPAs, or my lagers, or anything else really.

To do session beers right, you need to tweak your approach a bit. Without much thought, we adjust our grainbills to account for inefficiency in barleywine grists, add rice hulls to the grist for wheat beers, add ferulic acid rests to hefes, decoct or step mash certain lagers, so why aren't we adapting our breweries to accomodate smaller beers?

I hope you've found this helpful. It's a bunch of stuff that I've learned the hard way and I hope you take it in the spirt in which it was meant. Again, I'm not implying that you don't know what you're doing. I'm just trying to pass along some lessons that I learned the hard way and I hope that you receive this post in that way.

 

[Bramling Cross]

I am sure I have said this before in other posts, but it is one of my brewing books that I was most disappointed in. I have looked back through it, and I just don't see what others see.

• There is good information about the history of session beers and some current trends. This might be interesting to read, but I did not find it very educational (at least when it comes to information to help me craft session beers).
• There is very little first hand knowledge directly from the author about what she learned brewing 4% ABV beers. Chapter 2 should be packed full of solid advice about creating session beers, but it seems to be very generic. Lots of it is just "follow good brewing practices" advice.
• About half of the recipe given are just standard examples of styles that are already in the sub 5% range and lots of the recipe are for beers above 5% ABV. I don't want a recipe for a 5.2% Cream Ale. I want to know how to make a 4% ABV beer that drinks like a "standard" IPA, Robust Porter, etc.
• Most recipes have 1 page of text about the brewery, but instead of sharing knowledge that that brewery has about making session beers it is just generic info about the brewery that could have been coped from their "About Us" webpage.
• Also, very few of the recipes are from the author (I think there is one or two.) This would be great insight into the types of recipes that she created and brewed.

I don't recall brewing any of the recipes. The book is 240 pages long, and about half of it is the recipe sections (including the "about the brewery" pages). Most of the recipes are versions of commercial beers (and I think the recipes came from the breweries). It is a decent listing of recipes in the 4% to 5% ABV range. I am pretty sure there are twice as many over 5% recipes than under 4% ones though.

That's a fair criticism of the book. Your remarks about the recipes, in particular, are great. Frankly, it's been years since I looked at the recipes, but I do remember them being underwhelming--there was a California brewery's pils that I found interesting as well as the author's DI stout. I also remember there being a lot of sours, which kinda dates the book. I'm not interested in recipes, though, so I give her a free pass. If you're looking for recipes, I certainly see your point. It's a good one.

I found her remarks about water to be especially helpful and well worth the cost of the book. I don't want to get into details about those remarks because I think it's fair that her insights should be purchased. I read that book at a time when I was really struggling with my water. I was making very nice, very by the numbers beers, that had no soul. She broke me out of that rut and I'm actually about as happy with my beers as I'm likely to ever be: it's a pleasure to be merely f'ing furious with my beer for a change.

Also, I think her remarks about recipe construction and the session beer mindset are fantastic. It's a headspace and I think she captures it well.

I enjoyed reading your review and I thought it was a good.

 

[Gary25]

For body and head, maybe swap 2:1 carapils (or similar) for pale malt? (2:1 should roughly keep ABV static while upping OG/FG)

Great suggestion.

I’m going to try both wheat and carapils- but carapils first. Given the already low ABV, I can probably just add carapils and not affect the gravity too much. I’m thinking I’ll go big with it; perhaps 10% of the malt bill and see if it makes an appreciable difference. If the OG gets too high, I’ll remove some base malt.

 

[beersk]

I write the following with a light hand because there is a danger that you could interpret this as me suggesting that you're not a competent brewer. That's not at all what I'm trying suggest. Instead, I'm highlighting a few insights that I stumbled upon over many years of trying to learn how to make session ales that are just as satisfying as their more substantial brethren.

Could you describe a bit more what you mean by "grainy?" It's really easy to over-sparge session beers and if you don't have solid control over your pH, things can get out of hand in a real hurry.

Especially with my tiny UK ales, I've written new Brewsmith mash profiles for UK ales. The goal of these profiles is the reduction of my sparge water budget via the use of a second infusion in the mash tun (strike @ 148F, infuse to 155F). The more I brew, the more firmly I hold the opinion that shifting your water budget away from the sparge tank and toward the mash tun results in better beer. When it comes to smaller beers, I think the effect is especially noticeable.

Also, I've found that gently over-acidifying your sparge water yields improvements. For example, I generally like to mash at pH 5.4 and over-acidify my sparge such that my entire runnings, pre-boil land at or below pH 5.3. Again, this seems to help to produce a superior beer. I brew with tap, so this is easy to accomplish. If you're using RO, this might not be feasible.

I'm really sorry about bringing this up, but it is worth mentioning! Have you goofed around with LODO? Once you've done it a couple of times it's easy to do, cheap, and it really does make a tangible difference. Also, you don't have to go full LODO right out of the gate. I gradually introduced LODO techniques into my brewery and continued adding them as I saw tangible improvements. In fact, I'm still not fully LODO compliant (*snicker* Ah, those guys!) because I refuse to give up my old copper IC--it's paid for, it does a great job, and it doesn't need replacing. Thus far, LODO has been cheap and easy. I prefer to keep it that way.

Wrapping up, I suppose you can think of it this way: Your brewery isn't a sausage machine. The neat thing about sausage machines is that no matter what you put into them, it comes out sausage on the other side, right? Breweries aren't at all like that! It's important to adapt your brewery to optimize the beer you're trying to brew. I certainly don't brew my tiny beers the same way that I brew my IPAs, or my lagers, or anything else really.

To do session beers right, you need to tweak your approach a bit. Without much thought, we adjust our grainbills to account for inefficiency in barleywine grists, add rice hulls to the grist for wheat beers, add ferulic acid rests to hefes, decoct or step mash certain lagers, so why aren't we adapting our breweries to accomodate smaller beers?

I hope you've found this helpful. It's a bunch of stuff that I've learned the hard way and I hope you take it in the spirt in which it was meant. Again, I'm not implying that you don't know what you're doing. I'm just trying to pass along some lessons that I learned the hard way and I hope that you receive this post in that way.

No offense taken, amigo. I appreciate the tips. pH is probably something I don't monitor as much as I should. I basically use Bru'n water and trust that it's getting me to where I need to be. Not ideal, but has never let me down. With lower abv, I am aware that there isn't as much yeast activity bringing the final beer pH down, so I try to aim for a lower pH overall because of that.
The grainy flavor could be that, but I think it's just a lack of alcohol sweetness to balance. But could also be pH.
I do a full volume mash, so no sparge to worry about there.

And also, I've dabbled with LODO I was one of the early adopters in 2016 when everyone was bickering and arguing about it. I was seeking the "it" flavor found in German beers, since 2014 or 2015. Low o2 brewing was not well received back then. Thankfully all that has settled down.
It does make a difference in my opinion, but I also feel it's a matter of preference. I did a side-by-side helles batch once and most people that tried it picked out the low o2 beer every time, but they also noted that it was very subtle. And it is. It does not, however, get me that intense malt flavor that German beers have though; it's like the malt you taste in ice cream from DQ or wherever, malted milkball type malt flavor. That's how I perceive it. Low o2 brewing never got me that in all the years I brewed it. I don't brew low o2 every time nowadays. I get lazy, even though the yeast oxygen scavenging method is super easy.

But now I'm thinking to take a hiatus from brewing. Over the last few years I've been considering it. Usually I only take about a 2 month break, so not really a hiatus

 

[Bramling Cross]

No offense taken, amigo.

Phew!

 

[CascadesBrewer]

I found her remarks about water to be especially helpful and well worth the cost of the book.

I think if I approach the book from a different perspective, I can appreciate it more. One definition of "Session" is "a lower strength version of a style." Session IPA is one of the most well known, but you could apply it to many styles (Session Amber Ale, Session Robust Stout, etc.). I was hoping this was the focus of the book ("How could I make good examples of my favorite styles in a sub 4% format?") but it is not.

The book is more focused on existing lower ABV styles that could be considered Session beers (American Lager, Blonde Ale, Belgian Table Beer, English Mild, Irish Stout, etc.), even if some of these might push the ABV limits on what is considered Session-able. While I wanted Chapter 2 to focus on "how to make good tasting 4% beers", instead it is more "insights from a professional brewer on how to make quality beers of any ABV." There are some good looking recipes in the book, even if many of them are in the 5% range.

 

[Gary25]

Great suggestion.

I’m going to try both wheat and carapils- but carapils first. Given the already low ABV, I can probably just add carapils and not affect the gravity too much. I’m thinking I’ll go big with it; perhaps 10% of the malt bill and see if it makes an appreciable difference. If the OG gets too high, I’ll remove some base malt.

I have a new version fermenting. Everything the same but added 2 lbs carapils.
Malt bill:
Two row: 61.5%
Flaked rye: 15.4%
Munich: 10.3%
Carapils: 10.3%
C40: 2.6%

45 minute mash @160F
US05 yeast

OG rose to 1.042 (estimated ABV 3.8%) so a bit higher than the previous version.

I’ve read criticisms of carapils not really delivering on the foam/body attributes. It will be interesting to see if it helps in this case where I noted weakness in body and lacing in the first version.

 

[bwible]

Breiss on their site says:

Usage Levels / Beer Styles

1-5%	To add body and foam stability without influencing color or aroma

10% is pretty over the top. I’ve never used that much. I saw one recipe on Founders site for their Curmedgeon Old Ale - since they stopped brewing it they put a recipe out there for homebrewers - that has a very large percentage of carapils and I wondered about that. Definitely let us know. Thanks

 

[Gary25]

Breiss on their site says:

Usage Levels / Beer Styles

1-5%	To add body and foam stability without influencing color or aroma

10% is pretty over the top. I’ve never used that much. I saw one recipe on Founders site for their Curmedgeon Old Ale - since they stopped brewing it they put a recipe out there for homebrewers - that has a very large percentage of carapils and I wondered about that. Definitely let us know. Thanks

Good point—this may well be too much. I purposely went high to try to reach an upper limit….but didn’t notice I was double the recommended amount. Good thing beer is forgiving!

Once it’s in the keg, I’ll give it a try and compare it to the first version. Hopefully there is a noticeable (and positive) difference!

 

[mashdar]

IMO a low ABV can stand higher % crystal etc. And higher ABV needs less. A flat % never made much sense to me.

But OG 1.042 isn't super low, either I'd be tempted to calculate the weight of 5% in a 1.052 beer and use that as a max. (I treat 1.052 ~ 5% ~ standard beer.)

 

[worlddivides]

I usually do around 4% Carapils. I've also often combined it with around 4% flaked wheat, so I'm not sure how much of the foam stability is from the Carapils and how much from the flaked wheat, but the beers I've used that combo in have always had great foam stability.

The most recent beer I made also had an OG of 1.042, but it had an FG of 1.008, meaning 4.46% ABV, which I wouldn't consider low ABV at all but more "average" ABV since most of the best selling beers are in between 4% and 6% with most between 4.5% and 5.5%. With all that flaked rye, though, I imagine the FG will be quite a bit higher and you may indeed get an ABV of around 3.7% or 3.8%.

 

[day_trippr]

At the age of 18 I was a freshman at the University of Denver and coming from Massachusetts with its traditional 21 yo drinking age the notion I could consume alcohol without looking over my shoulder was an intriguing benny. Tbh, I went to DU for the skiing - the EE degree was an excuse to ski my brains out for four years Having access to the Coors brewery in Golden was the cherry on top.

Yeah, it was 3.2, but it was legit alcohol three years before my original schedule

Cheers!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Low ABV beers have been the norm in the UK for a very long time. The first world war brought beers down to around 3% more than 100 years ago and we now have alcohol tax tiers that have caused a lot of breweries to adjust beers under 4% to 3.4%.

While I think a lot of these beers are/were better around 3.8%, a 3.4% beer can be very satisfying and have plenty of flavour. Adjust your mash process, choose your malts accordingly, and use a yeast that contributes flavour and doesn't strip out the malt. Imported US/NZ/Oz hops have become common in these ales now.

 

[An Ankoù]

Low ABV beers have been the norm in the UK for a very long time. The first world war brought beers down to around 3% more than 100 years ago and we now have alcohol tax tiers that have caused a lot of breweries to adjust beers under 4% to 3.4%.

While I think a lot of these beers are/were better around 3.8%, a 3.4% beer can be very satisfying and have plenty of flavour. Adjust your mash process, choose your malts accordingly, and use a yeast that contributes flavour and doesn't strip out the malt. Imported US/NZ/Oz hops have become common in these ales now.

Spot on @duncan_disorderly .
And don't imagine you can brew every style at this abv, standard and best bitters, English milds and stouts and some Scottish shilling ales are styles in their own rights and have little in common with some American interpretations. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter. Low abv bitter and mild are a product of both wartime austerity and heavy industry. A coal miner or steel worker might finish his shift by downing many pints (of 20 fluid ounces) to rehydrate himself. He'd be a ruin after 6 or more pints of 6½% abv on a regular basis.
Beers in the low 4s are commonplace: Draught Guinness at 4.2%, Pilsner Urquell at 4.3% for example. The strength follows the culture. In Britain we have a culture of volume drinking, in Belgium, by contrast, it's a sipping culture, but of stronger beers. At the end of the day we still want to achieve a warm, alcoholic glow and probably consume a similar amount of alcohol.
In the 70s and 80s mass produced British Beers were mostly a bit below 4%. This at a time when travel was becoming much more common. Young lads used to drinking a gallon of beer (8 pints of 20 fluid ounces) would suddenly encounter cheaper half-litres of beer in excess of 5% with predictable consequences. Hence the rise of the "lager lout".
I like Belgian beers, but I rarely drink them as I prefer the fuller stomach that several pints of ale or lager brings and don't feel I've had a proper drink until I've had that volume. I might substitute my final pint with a 33 of a nice trappist or abbey beer, though.
In fact I'm going to Belgium at the weekend so I'll have to show willing.

 

[Broothru]

At the age of 18 I was a freshman at the University of Denver and coming from Massachusetts with its traditional 21 yo drinking age the notion I could consume alcohol without looking over my shoulder was an intriguing benny. Tbh, I went to DU for the skiing - the EE degree was an excuse to ski my brains out for four years Having access to the Coors brewery in Golden was the cherry on top.

Yeah, it was 3.2, but it was legit alcohol three years before my original schedule

Cheers!

As a Naval Aviator, I had to quality (and then re-qual) in the hypobaric pressure chamber every 8-10 years. We would “pre-ox” breathing 100% O2 for :20 minutes at ambient pressure, then gradually experience reduced pressure up to the equivalent of 24,000’ pressure altitude.

Approximately 10,000’ PA is where most people will start feeling lightheaded and giddy. At 18,000’, barometric pressure is about one-half of sea level PA (500 millibars). At 24,000’ PA, we’d be instructed to remove our 100% O2 supply (one ‘lab rat’ at a time) under the close supervision of one of the chamber staff, and be instructed to perform simple tasks like an elementary math calculation or a dexterity test playing patty-cake with another trainee.

The Time of Useful Consciousness for an average 25-35 year old male in good health at 24,000’ PA is measured not in minutes but rather in seconds. The non-linear rule of thumb was for every 8,000’ of equivalent PA reduction, you’d experience the equivalent loss of function and inhibition as if you’d consumed a strong alcoholic drink. Twenty-four thousand feet PA was equivalent to having rapidly slammed down 3 stiff drinks.

Later that evening at the O’Club bar, we were all ordering 24,000’ of beer! At roughly 5,400’ PA in the foothills of the Rockies at Denver University, you had a permanent head start of a little over ⅔ of a beer!

 

[sibelman]

playing patty-cake with another trainee.

Thank you for this lovely image, @Broothru .

 

[Broothru]

Thank you for this lovely image, @Broothru .

I was kinda’ funny watching your fellow trainees laughing and giggling like schoolboys who couldn’t coordinate physical movements, or who would scribble illegibly on a pad of paper trying to solve 1+3-2=?.

The no-so-fun parts were the occasional trainee who might pass out until the chamber attendants got the O2 mask back on, or when a simulated rapid loss of pressurization (not an ‘explosive’ depressurization) from 10,000’ PA to 24,000’ PA was demo’d.

For pilots in tactical aircraft, there was a demo of something in excess of 35,000’ PA (can’t remember exactly how high) so they could experience Positive Pressure Breathing when O2 is forcibly delivered into the face mask to ensure absorption of oxygen into the bloodstream at reduced barometric pressure. That one was a one time only demo that didn’t require periodic requalification.

 

[sibelman]

Yeah, I know this is serious stuff, but the pattycake thing you mentioned led me to imagine not just U.S. Navy pilots, but Brits in pubs, Belgians in kroegs, playing pattycake. Back to low ABV brews.

 

[Broothru]

Yeah, I know this is serious stuff, but the pattycake thing you mentioned led me to imagine not just U.S. Navy pilots, but Brits in pubs, Belgians in kroegs, playing pattycake. Back to low ABV brews.

View attachment 860465

Yeah, that’s what we pretty much looked like…

 

[Gary25]

I usually do around 4% Carapils. I've also often combined it with around 4% flaked wheat, so I'm not sure how much of the foam stability is from the Carapils and how much from the flaked wheat, but the beers I've used that combo in have always had great foam stability.

The most recent beer I made also had an OG of 1.042, but it had an FG of 1.008, meaning 4.46% ABV, which I wouldn't consider low ABV at all but more "average" ABV since most of the best selling beers are in between 4% and 6% with most between 4.5% and 5.5%. With all that flaked rye, though, I imagine the FG will be quite a bit higher and you may indeed get an ABV of around 3.7% or 3.8%.

IMO a low ABV can stand higher % crystal etc. And higher ABV needs less. A flat % never made much sense to me.

But OG 1.042 isn't super low, either I'd be tempted to calculate the weight of 5% in a 1.052 beer and use that as a max. (I treat 1.052 ~ 5% ~ standard beer.)

Good idea. I’ll do this before making the next batch. Had not thought about the specialty malts vs ABV. Makes sense.

 

[Gary25]

I usually do around 4% Carapils. I've also often combined it with around 4% flaked wheat, so I'm not sure how much of the foam stability is from the Carapils and how much from the flaked wheat, but the beers I've used that combo in have always had great foam stability.

The most recent beer I made also had an OG of 1.042, but it had an FG of 1.008, meaning 4.46% ABV, which I wouldn't consider low ABV at all but more "average" ABV since most of the best selling beers are in between 4% and 6% with most between 4.5% and 5.5%. With all that flaked rye, though, I imagine the FG will be quite a bit higher and you may indeed get an ABV of around 3.7% or 3.8%.

My thinking is wheat may work better for foam (I use wheat in most of my beers); carapils better for body (I rarely use carapils). I purposely didn’t combine them here to see how carapils does on its own. Of course, I raised the ABV, so that unfortunately introduces another variable. I think a few more iterations are forthcoming.

 

[Halfakneecap]

I've talked to a few people about this as I'm starting to get into low abv brewing and I've shared a few of them. It seems everyone is fixated on brewing essentially non-alcoholic beer. And to me, NA beer tastes bad. Even the good ones don't taste like beer. They are beer-like, sure. But they aren't beer and leave me unsatisfied.

I've been brewing beers around 3%, shooting for 3.2% and they are every bit as satisfying as a 5% beer. I've been mashing warmer and shorter, using a bit more malts like Munich or Vienna, lowering the IBUs a tad, and using good yeast. It's just a theory of mine so far, but I feel the lower ABV just may let some of the more subtle yeast characteristics show a bit more. I currently have a 3.1% helles (Omega Mexican lager) and a 2.9% hefeweiss (W-68) on tap and I love them. Others have had them and said that if I wouldn't have told them they were 3% they would never have guessed. That makes me happy to hear.

I know others have been brewing lower abv beers, but I'm not talking cold mash (done that, don't like it) or 1.5% abv beers with 170F mash temps. I'm talking about the same exact styles we're all used to drinking, but a perfect in between abv. It's not really an extreme.

I think there's definitely a market for this as people want to cut back on their alcohol consumption but are put off by the price of NA beer and dissatisfied with it as well. Brewing 3.2 beer should be cheaper overall and can be every bit as flavorful and satisfying. Plus there are some historic styles that are under appreciated and unknown to much of the beer drinking public. I feel this is a largely untapped market, a perfect happy medium.

Maybe no one cares but I wanted to start a discussion for others who are doing the same, but not taking it to an extreme, just striving for a perfect happy medium while still achieving the same flavors.

Prost!

95% of my beers are 3.5-4%. Love them. Lots of commercial breweries here ( aus ) and craft breweries have one in their range. Im a big fan

 

[AlexKay]

I have made a bunch of beers at around 2%. It's a hassle, and some have been duds, but some have been eminently drinkable.

Some thoughts:

• Carapils is, in my opinion, marketing. I've never been convinced it added anything useful. There's one study I'm aware of that says it is foam-negative.
• A cold mash can add flavor and body without adding fermentables. I cold mash Briess MaltGems at ~1.5 pounds/gallon. After mashing, the not-so-spent grains make a really nice adjunct for a second (higher-alcohol) beer. That's a long day, though.
• The cold mash also leaves you with a ton of enzymes in the water, so the "actual" mash can proceed with a minimal grist that under normal circumstances wouldn't even self-convert. Some Munich, some Victory, some crystal. And then, of course, mash high.
• I'm generally pretty paranoid about food safety below 3%. I keep kegs for a relatively short amount of time, always cold, and use a picnic tap instead of hooking up to my draft system.
• I've been adding inulin at ~60 g/gal, to increase body without adding anything fermentable. I should really do a side-by-side to see if the effect is noticeable. It seems like it helps.

I also keep hop water on tap, and a sort-of-radler with equal parts hop water and 2% beer gets you down to 1%. It's pretty good!

 

[Broothru]

I have made a bunch of beers at around 2%. It's a hassle, and some have been duds, but some have been eminently drinkable.

Some thoughts:

• Carapils is, in my opinion, marketing. I've never been convinced it added anything useful. There's one study I'm aware of that says it is foam-negative.
• A cold mash can add flavor and body without adding fermentables. I cold mash Briess MaltGems at ~1.5 pounds/gallon. After mashing, the not-so-spent grains make a really nice adjunct for a second (higher-alcohol) beer. That's a long day, though.
• The cold mash also leaves you with a ton of enzymes in the water, so the "actual" mash can proceed with a minimal grist that under normal circumstances wouldn't even self-convert. Some Munich, some Victory, some crystal. And then, of course, mash high.
• I'm generally pretty paranoid about food safety below 3%. I keep kegs for a relatively short amount of time, always cold, and use a picnic tap instead of hooking up to my draft system.
• I've been adding inulin at ~60 g/gal, to increase body without adding anything fermentable. I should really do a side-by-side to see if the effect is noticeable. It seems like it helps.

I also keep hop water on tap, and a sort-of-radler with equal parts hop water and 2% beer gets you down to 1%. It's pretty good!

Have you acidified below pH 4.6 in the final beer? That should enough to protect against most (if not all) pathogens. So do higher hopping rates. A few months ago I had an email exchange with Brad Smith (BeerSmith, PhD Microbiologist, beer nerd) who basically said that there are no known pathogens that can exist in beer (‘normal’ beer with typical alcohol and hopping rates).

Of course bad things can flourish in dirty beer lines and taps, etc. But at pH levels <4.8 and constant cold chain handling at serving temperatures, it’s highly unlikely that any beer can make you sick.

Even with Dr. Smith’s reassurances, I still harbor the same concerns you’ve noted. It’s a shame because I’ve been trying to consume and brew more LA/NA beers. Even the best commercial ones are ‘average’ at best when it comes to taste, mouthfeel and drinkability.

 

[AlexKay]

Have you acidified below pH 4.6 in the final beer? That should enough to protect against most (if not all) pathogens. So do higher hopping rates. A few months ago I had an email exchange with Brad Smith (BeerSmith, PhD Microbiologist, beer nerd) who basically said that there are no known pathogens that can exist in beer (‘normal’ beer with typical alcohol and hopping rates).

Of course bad things can flourish in dirty beer lines and taps, etc. But at pH levels <4.8 and constant cold chain handling at serving temperatures, it’s highly unlikely that any beer can make you sick.

Even with Dr. Smith’s reassurances, I still harbor the same concerns you’ve noted. It’s a shame because I’ve been trying to consume and brew more LA/NA beers. Even the best commercial ones are ‘average’ at best when it comes to taste, mouthfeel and drinkability.

No known human pathogens in normal beer because of alcohol, pH, and hops. I believe there is general concern (among professionals) that NA’s two out of three is not sufficient to be safe. But yes indeed, I do acidify and I keep things cold.

As far as commercial NAs go, I quite like Athletic’s Run Wild and Untitled Art’s American Gold. They’re a cut above the rest. I’ve yet to come across any dark NA that’s even drinkable, though, mostly because of sweetness.

I’ve made some LA stouts that weren’t at all bad.

 

[Broothru]

No known human pathogens in normal beer because of alcohol, pH, and hops. I believe there is general concern (among professionals) that NA’s two out of three is not sufficient to be safe. But yes indeed, I do acidify and I keep things cold.

As far as commercial NAs go, I quite like Athletic’s Run Wild and Untitled Art’s American Gold. They’re a cut above the rest. I’ve yet to come across any dark NA that’s even drinkable, though, mostly because of sweetness.

I’ve made some LA stouts that weren’t at all bad.

Agree. Athletic has some good beers, focused on the keto crowd, and the Lagunitas NA IPA isn’t ‘bad’. But finding one that I can settle on as a go-to has been my white whale.

I had gotten all excited about cold mashing, but then life got in the way, and by the time I got back into re-establishing the pipeline, the concerns about the safety of NA/LA brewing reared its ugly head. Anyway, rekindling the idea. What downsides and what successes have you had, and what advice can you share with a noob?

 

[bwible]

I am sure I have said this before in other posts, but it is one of my brewing books that I was most disappointed in. I have looked back through it, and I just don't see what others see.

I’ve been way more disappointed with several others.

First is that one called “Hooray for Beer!”. I got that for free with my AHA renewal and I’m so glad I didn’t pay money for that.

Another one is the Wood and Beer book which talks alot about barrels and foeders but offers absolutely nothing useful - not even a recipe. Unfortunately, that one I did pay money for.

The Eclectic IPA book was another one I gave away.

When I first got Designing Great Beers around 1999 or so that was one of the best brewing books out there at the time. I learned a ton out of that book. I carried it everywhere. My first copy was destroyed just from use. It was folded, bent, stained, dog earred and half the pages were seperated and falling out. Most of the other books on my shelf look brand new. I had to buy Designing Great Beers again. I still look at it once in awhile.

 

[bwible]

Maybe that is where my expectations of the book were out of line with reality. I do agree that we tend to underestimate the impact of the alcohol in beers. I don't gravitate to Quads, Imperial Stouts or Double IPAs just because I want to get drunk.

I tend to be looking for the higher abv stuff in the cold weather. I’m brewing old ales and imperial stouts and barleywines to have over the winter when its cold. I agree there is much more to these than just getting drunk. They’ve been some of my favorites the last few years, especially anything barrel aged.

I think I’m looking for the lighter and lower abv stuff in the summer. And yeah, I’ve tried brewing them. Its something I’d like to do again when thinking about beers to make for next summer.

The big breweries are focused more on reducing calories and carbs but still keeping alcohol. Michelob Ultra says 95 calories, 2.6 carbs, 4.2%. Miller Lite, the original is 96 calories, 3.2 carbs, 4.2%. For comparison Miller High Life is 141 calories, 12.6 carbs, and 4.6%

Getting the carbs out is a different animal and its where they use the carb reducing enzyme glyco whatever it is. But carbs and calories seem to be a different focus than just brewing lower abv.

 

[bwible]

They had 3.2 beer at the enlisted men’s club on a couple of different navy bases where I was assigned in the 80s. I was 21 or 22 at the time and still quite a few years from starting my journey down the beer rabbit hole. I remember some of the guys complaining and they made it obvious they didn’t think 3.2 beer was a good thing. But I don’t remember much else about it - good, bad, or who made it.

 

[Halfakneecap]

I dont really do anything different for 3.5-4%. Even rice lagers around 3.5%, I dont mind the light body at all. Ambers and APA's as well, i think they work fine.

Going lower, i used to do a lot of mild ales around 3%, really enjoyed them. Using Maris Otter etc, i didnt have issues with them being too light in body.

 

[Gary25]

My thinking is wheat may work better for foam (I use wheat in most of my beers); carapils better for body (I rarely use carapils). I purposely didn’t combine them here to see how carapils does on its own. Of course, I raised the ABV, so that unfortunately introduces another variable. I think a few more iterations are forthcoming.

Quick update on my rye ale. Made a second batch with carapils added and would say the beer was about the same as without. Perhaps a bit better on head retention and body, but nothing remarkable. A have another batch substituting wheat for carapils.

Here’s what I’d like to try next: a low alcohol yeast. I’m thinking White Labs 618 NA All Day yeast (Saccharomycodes ludwigii). Can’t find out much about it outside the White Labs website.

My preference would be to make a ~3% ABV beer vs a .5% ABV beer and save the pathogen challenges for a future NA beer. I’m curious if the final beer might come out sweet/cloying if it has too many unfermented sugars from the 618 yeast. The tech sheet says 2-5% alcohol tolerance, so I’m thinking it will reach 3% with the same recipe (OG around 1.040). I have been using Fermentis S-05. Thoughts? Anyone use this yeast?

 

[Gary25]

Putting WLP618 in Beersmith, it puts the final beer ABV at 1.3%. Changing to a typical 152 degree mash gets it up to 1.5% ABV. Lower than I’d like, but perhaps worth a try. I’ll definitely check the pH of the finished beer and add some acid if necessary…