Ultimate session beer experiemnt

[gstrawn]

I have seen many people are interested in a low calorie/ low alcohol beer without compromising the big flavor we have all come to expect in our homebrews. Ive managed to get an entire day off from class so I'll be going to the LHBS to get some ingredients for 2, 2 gallon batches of a simple American pale ale in which I will attempt to use mash temperatures to create a beer with a high FG. I realize a stout, or something with a higher percentage of roasted malts would be more favorable but I just don't want to! I was hoping I could get some feedback from you more knowledgeable brewers about what mash temps you think I should attempt in order to compare FG yields. I was thinking 158 and 160 although I've speculated that 160 may denature the enzymes. I plan to do a single temp sacc. Rest.

Recipe:

Batch size:
2 gallons

1 lb. 8 oz. American 2 row
5 oz. carapils
4 oz. crystal 60

.25 oz. amarillo 15 min.
.25 oz. amarillo 10 min.
.25 oz. amarillo 5 min.
.25 oz. amarillo 0 min.

Brew house efficiency: 80%

Calculated OG: 1.038
Calculated FG: 1.008

Desired FG: ~1.012

Things I would like input on:

1. Does the recipe seem solid, I.e. do you feel it's plausible this would even begin to be successful?

2. What mash temps seems most appropriate?

3. Any other suggestions that would make this more informative for the community?

 

[eastoak]

i mash my session beers at 160 and the one i have fermenting now finished right around 1011.

 

[uncommonsense]

Personally i like to mash lower so i get realy good attenuation. Dryer low alcohol beers seem realy sessiony to me.

 

[bbrim]

I recommend using a base malt malt with substantial flavor contributions, such as Maris Otter. That will give a lot more flavor to a beer that otherwise may seem thin. Also, using a no-sparge technique will ensure you get only the highest quality wort into the kettle.

 

[gstrawn]

I recommend using a base malt malt with substantial flavor contributions, such as Maris Otter. That will give a lot more flavor to a beer that otherwise may seem thin. Also, using a no-sparge technique will ensure you get only the highest quality wort into the kettle.

I very much like that idea and will sub marris otter for 2 row. I will be sparing because What I am trying to attempt is to use high mash temps to create a high FG beer that is as close to my 1.055 pale ales I brew all of the time.

 

[heckels]

Maybe I'm missing something here but wouldn't lower attenuation caused by higher mash temps result in more residual sugar and, therefore, more calories? Wouldn't you want something drier?

 

[944play]

If your goal is to minimize calories per unit ethanol, then yes, you would want to dry out the beer. However, super thin small beers tend to feel more like seltzer water than beer, whereas that small beer will still taste like beer if you sacrifice some ABVs to leave a bit more polysaccharides at a given OG.

High attenuation is desirable in bigger beers that you want to have a lighter impression, like Tripel and IIPA.

 

[uncommonsense]

You could also try a yeast strain that has lots of character. Something with lots of fruit. If you like that sort of thing.

 

[PT Ray]

...I am trying to attempt is to use high mash temps to create a high FG beer that is as close to my 1.055 pale ales I brew all of the time.

What's the original recipe and what ABV are you looking to obtain? More or less you need to cut down the base malt and not so much the specialty grains if you're looking to drop the ABV and still keep the flavor.

 

[gstrawn]

If your goal is to minimize calories per unit ethanol, then yes, you would want to dry out the beer. However, super thin small beers tend to feel more like seltzer water than beer, whereas that small beer will still taste like beer if you sacrifice some ABVs to leave a bit more polysaccharides at a given OG.

High attenuation is desirable in bigger beers that you want to have a lighter impression, like Tripel and IIPA.

Exactly. I still want the FG of a typical ale but by sacrificing alcohol content I hope to have a low calorie session beer

 

[gstrawn]

I brewed these beers yesterday in 2 gallon batches and used marriage otter in stead of the 2 row and my LHBS was out of a,Arielle so I decided I would try Nelson sauvin. I mashed one at 162 and one at 166 after discussion with the LHBS owner (he accidentally mashed at 168 once and a 1.060 went only to 1.035). Regardless I ended up with 2 batches, the one mashed at 166 FG of 1.031 and mashed at 162 FG of 1.034 (larger diameter boil pot yielded to much boil off). I pitched the yeast and it's fermenting as we speak. Worst comes to worst Ill have two great wyeast 1272 starters

 

[uncommonsense]

Its a little late but i just read a good article in byo about this subject. The idea was that a no-sparge mash would get you a more flavorful session beer at the cost of alittle efficiency.

 

[GreatWetNorth]

Going back to the point about trying to brew a low-calorie beer, remember that alcohol contains calories too. For the sake of argument, does anyone know how the calorie content of alcohol compares to that of the unfermented sugars in beer ? Depending on a few factors, having a dryer beer might not necessarily be lower in calories.

 

[944play]

In the USA, we learned in eighth grade health class that carbohydrates are 4 kcal/gm, fats are 9, alcohol is 7.

Most homebrew software will calculate estimated calories per serving from OG and FG.

 

[gstrawn]

Going back to the point about trying to brew a low-calorie beer, remember that alcohol contains calories too. For the sake of argument, does anyone know how the calorie content of alcohol compares to that of the unfermented sugars in beer ? Depending on a few factors, having a dryer beer might not necessarily be lower in calories.

Im not trying for a dry beer at all. Actually that's not the point at all. Im creating a low alcohol, full flavor beer. My goal is to have a pale ale that's 3% and taste like a 6%

 

[Aunt_Ester]

Please keep us posted!

 

[jfr1111]

Im not trying for a dry beer at all. Actually that's not the point at all. Im creating a low alcohol, full flavor beer. My goal is to have a pale ale that's 3% and taste like a 6%

Brew something like a bitter with American hops (which is what you're pretty much already doing). No need to reinvent the wheel

 

[BetterSense]

It seems to me that the main thing that affects the calorie content of beer (per-bottle basis) is the OG. OG is literally the % sugar in the beer. Whether the sugar gets converted to alcohol or not, doesn't seem to matter for calories, unless we know that alcohol has more or less calories than sugar but I don't think it does. I think it's about the same. So the way to brew a low-calorie beer is to use a lower OG.

The problem is that low-gravity beers are thinner and drier than higher-gravity beers. I think the point is that if you mash at higher temps, you might be able to brew a low-gravity beer that doesn't attenuate as much and therefore tastes more like a normal-gravity beer, but having less calories (and less alcohol).

 

[uncommonsense]

You could add to much unmalted adjuncts, with the small grain bill you may not have enough conversion power to convert it and thus unfermentable. I did that twice with flaked corn. I had a stout finish 10 point off twice and according to my math thats what the corn add. The stout was realy good but it didnt dry out like i planed.

 

[944play]

Whether the sugar gets converted to alcohol or not, doesn't seem to matter for calories, unless we know that alcohol has more or less calories than sugar but I don't think it does. I think it's about the same.

In the USA, we learned in eighth grade health class that carbohydrates are 4 kcal/gm, fats are 9, alcohol is 7.

Calories go down slightly with lower FG, as fermentation is exothermic.

 

[BetterSense]

In the USA, we learned in eighth grade health class that carbohydrates are 4 kcal/gm, fats are 9, alcohol is 7.

Calories go down slightly with lower FG, as fermentation is exothermic.

These two statements conflict with each other. Was that your intention? How can alcohol have more calories than sugar, yet calories go down as fermentation progresses?

 

[jfr1111]

These two statements conflict with each other. Was that your intention? How can alcohol have more calories than sugar, yet calories go down as fermentation progresses?

Try it in Beersmith. The more alcohol you have for the same OG, the less calories. 1 gram of sugar doesn't convert into 1 gram of alcohol.

 

[Bmorebrew]

One mole of glucose ferments to two moles of alcohol.

 

[944play]

...and 2 moles CO2 and 26.4 kcal heat.

 

[JonM]

Speaking of Maris Otter and mash temps, I did two MO/centennial test-batch SMASHes last summer. One I mashed low, at 148-ish, and it was great. Did another and moved the mash temp up just a few degrees. The difference was really remarkable and, frankly, the one with the higher mash temp was not very good. Just based on that little experiment, I personally wouldn't want to do a 160-ish degree all MO beer.

 

[permo]

is it just me or is this pretty much what brittish bitter is? I like the amarillo idea as well, but for sure you need some english yeast like WLP023 and mash high as has been stated. I would use Halycon, MO or GP as the base and augment with some dark xtal and mash at 154 or so....

 

[Guess42]

These two statements conflict with each other. Was that your intention? How can alcohol have more calories than sugar, yet calories go down as fermentation progresses?

Those values are in kcal per gram. Carbohydrates are much heavier than ethanol and so actually contribute more calories per mole than the ethanol. Did'nt do the math but that should be approximately correct.

 

[gstrawn]

Deleted

 

[gstrawn]

@permo
Yes it is pretty much a bitter, but im not really concerned about the recipe because I wouldn't be surprised if this was undrinkable. I used 162 and 166 as temps just to get an idea of how this would affect FG. I've never used MO as the full base so I thought that would give it more flavor. I also used nelson sauvin because my lhbs was out of anarillo. It was really just a SMaSH recipe for fun and to see how it turned out. Im sure it'll suck but I was able to brew, have fun, and hopefully learn something for about $9.

@guess22
The idea is to maintain carbohydrate level in the FG but decrease alcohol levels. So it tastes like a full beer but doesn't pack the alcohol or caloric punch. Same carbs + less alcohol= less calories. It was calculated to be a ~100 calorie beer


Also I was able to locate an article in a scientific journal at my universities science library called something like "the effects of mash temps on alpha and beta amylase enzymes." I haven't went to check it out yet but I think it will be very helpful to us homebrewers and will support some of this pseudo experimentation im doing.

 

[DannPM]

Gotta ask, why a session beer so low? I consider a session beer anything under 6% abv personally. Under 4 imo is near-beer.