Low and No Alcohol Experimental Brewing Series.

New and Proven Brewing Techniques. Familiar but different.

Our experimental series is designed to compare the results of using the different methods, techniques, ingredients and chemistry in low and no alcohol brewing.

METHODS MADE SIMPLE:

METHODS MADE SIMPLE | Effects of Maltotriose yeast

Quite often we hear from some experts, and we recommend ourselves the use of maltotriose negative yeasts or other low attenuating strains, but how much difference does it actually contribute to NA/LA brewing? Maltotriose is a complex malt sugar, most brewer’s yeasts can metabolize maltotriose effectively, but only after all the simpler sugars, such as glucose, fructose, sucrose, and maltose have been consumed. But there are some strains lack the ability to convert this sugar such as Lallemand Windsor and London Ale III, resulting in a lower attenuation leaving behind residual sweetness, body, and mouthfeel.

So, what does this mean to me? As a brewer of non-alcoholic beer, lower attenuation and residual body/sweetness is something I desire in my fermentation, it leaves me with a more rounded fuller beer. But how much difference does it have compared to a regular yeast strain? Starting with a low original gravity wort consisting of mainly long chain sugars means I’m only getting a very brief ferment, so will this actually make much of a difference? We put it to the test.

Impact of Maltotriose Yeast

In this experiment, we will be looking to compare how much an impact the use of a maltotriose negative strain (Lallemand Windsor) has compared to a regular strain (Lallemand Verdant IPA). We will be looking to see if by using this style of yeast, we can create a beer with lower attenuation and a fuller body, resulting in a better tasting non-alcoholic beer.

By brewing a 22-litre batch of a hop forward Pale Ale, it will then be split into two 11 litre batches, both pitched with a different strain, left to ferment, cold crash, and carbonate before comparing results in a triangle test to determine if the yeast made an impact.

“Another Pale Ale”

Batch size: 22L

MASH TIME	BOIL TIME	IBU	EBC	EST. OG	EST. FG	ABV
30 mins	30 mins	34.0	7.9 EBC	1.013	1.010	0.40 %
	Actuals	1.014	1.008 (V) 1.010 (W)	0.50 % 0.80%

MASH TIME

BOIL TIME

IBU

EBC

EST. OG

EST. FG

ABV

30 mins

34.0

7.9 EBC

1.013

1.010

0.40 %

Actuals

1.014

1.008 (V)

1.010 (W)

0.50 %

0.80%

Grain Bill

NAME	AMOUNT	%
JWM Munich Light	800g	35.6
Simpsons Maris Otter	710g	31.6
Weyermann Carapils	327g	14.6
Gladfield Toffee	230g	10.2
Blue Lake Maltings Flaked Barley	180g	8.0

Hop Schedule

NAME	AMOUNT	TIME	USE	FORM	ALPHA %
Warrior	12g	30 min	Boil	Pellet	15.1
Amarillo	20g	5 min	Boil	Pellet	8.6
Talus	25g	5 min	Boil	Pellet	8.9
Amarillo	50g	4 days	Dry Hop	Pellet	8.6
Talus	50g	4 days	Dry Hop	Pellet	8.9

Yeast

NAME	LAB	ATTENUATION	TEMPERATURE
Verdant IPA	Lallemand	25% (Est.)	19°C
Windsor	Lallemand	23% (Est.)	19°C

Other

NAME	Amount	Time	Use
Whirlfloc	1 Tablet	10 mins	Clarity Agent

Water Profile: Ca²⁺96 | Mg²⁺ 12 | Na⁺ 27 | Cl⁻ 87 | SO₄²⁻ 162 | HCO₃⁻ 65

To start off with, we collect 28ltrs of our RO water, then fill our kettle and bring the water up to our strike temperature of 82ºC (179ºF). Once we reach our strike temperature, our water adjustments and our grain are added and stirred in to ensure we have no dough balls, then left to mash for 30 minutes at 80ºC (176ºF).

Once the mash is complete, we remove and drain the remaining wort from the bag, we then check our pre-boil gravity and proceed with the boil.

Once the wort has reached a boil, we start the timer for 30 minutes and add our first hop additions, continuing our way through the hop schedule and the addition of Whirlfloc.

Once the boil is complete, we take a sample to measure our post-boil gravity before transferring 11ltrs of the hot wort into each of the two separate HDPE cubes, pre-acidified to 4.6pH, and left cool down to pitching temperature overnight.

Once the wort has cooled overnight, we then pitch 5.5g of Lallemand Windsor into one of the cubes, and 5.5g of Lallemand Verdant IPA into the other cube and left to ferment for 7 days at 19ºC (66ºF), on day 3 we add our dry hop additions, and leave for the remainder of time.

Left: Verdant IPA Yeast 1.008 Final Gravity

Right: Windsor Yeast 1.010 Final Gravity

After the 7 days have elapsed, we check to ensure we’ve reached terminal gravity, then cold crash both cubes for 3 days at 2ºC (35.6ºF), then transfer both beers to 9.5L kegs each and carbonated at 12 psi for 7 days before sampling.

Left: Verdant Batch

Right: Windsor Batch

RESULTS

– Windsor: SG: 1.014, FG: 1.010, = 0.5% ABV

– Verdant: SG: 1.014, FG: 1.008 = 0.8% ABV

Appearance:

Both have a lovely golden glow, with a nice clear haze. Beautiful foam upon pours with a lasting sticky foam.

Aroma:

Juicy, tropical aroma, grapefruit, orange, with candy melon, light toffee/caramel aroma

Taste:

Delicate background caramel and toffee malt flavours, smooth piney/apple stalk bitterness up front along with a mouthful of tropical flavours including a prominent grapefruit and orange flavour, with a slight candy melon flavour, then a nice dry bitterness on the back end to entice another sip.

Overall First Impressions:

This is a very nice example of an American Pale Ale without the alcohol, with a great balance of flavours and aromas, and a lovely bright clear haze among a golden honey like colour. This certainly gets two thumbs up from me!

Side by side, both of these beers are very similar in all aspects. The Windsor stopped a couple gravity points higher at 1.010, with the Verdant batch falling lower to 1.008 and tipping just over the <0.5% category at 0.8% abv. I wasn’t surprised by these results, as I did expect to see a difference in fermentation and final gravity as the Windsor is a Maltotriose negative yeast, meaning it should have finished higher than Verdant, but without a side-by-side comparison, the actual difference wasn’t known.

To achieve a great tasting NA beer, we often suggest the use of Lallemand’s Windsor strain. It is certainly a great yeast to utilise in these processes, being maltotriose negative, this means it will leave behind some residual sugars, creating a lower abv and slightly sweeter/fuller beer than a standard yeast variety as we can see from the results of this experiment. If a brewer was still working their way through the motions of learning to brew an ultra-low/no alcohol beer, this would be a great place to start while they work out flavour combinations and fermentability control.

I do find the Windsor batch to be a slight bit softer and sweeter, whereas the Verdant is slightly drier and slightly more bitter and truer to style.

I feel that going forward from these results from a finished beer perspective, I personally would be more inclined to use Verdant for my high hopped ales (IPA, APA etc.), I’d also be more inclined to adjust the batch to have a lower starting gravity to create a lower abv (<0.5% abv), as that batch seemed truer to style with more clearer flavours and finish, I felt as though Windsor softened up the flavours a bit more than I’d have liked even though they are very similar in every aspect.

Both are great beers, and if I didn’t have any Verdant, I’d happily use Windsor in place to save a trip to the LHBS.

METHODS MADE SIMPLE | Impact of Glycerine in beer

If you’ve dived into researching the effects of yeast, and the by-products they create during fermentation, you will be familiar things such as esters, phenols, diacetyl, and acetaldehyde to name a few, but one compound not often spoken about in beer brewing is glycerol. In the wine industry, glycerol is often a by-product that is highly desired by many winemakers to increase body and mouthfeel of wines, especially lower alcohol, or light wines, but what is it?

Glycerol, as it’s known in its concentrated form is commercially available as the dilute version known as glycerine. It is a naturally occurring sugar alcohol, it is an odourless liquid that is used as a solvent, a sweetening agent in food and beverages, and as a common additive in medicines and cosmetics. Glycerol also has a caloric density similar to table sugar, without the plaque and cavity causing side effects. Though many brewers would know it primarily as a cryoprotectant where the glycerol (or glycerine) is dissolved in water to reduce damage by ice crystals to laboratory organisms that are stored in frozen solutions, such as harvested yeast for a brewhouse yeast bank.

A recent article I recently uncovered mentions that the glycerol content of beer varies little — generally from 1100 to 2100 mg/l (Nykänen & Suomalainen, 1983), although Drawert et al. (1976) found average glycerol contents ranging up to 3170 mg/l in some German beers (Ref. 1.0). With the low rate of fermentation in low and no alcohol beer, a decrease in yeast by-products is inherit. This means a decrease in glycerol can be shown by a lack of potential body and mouthfeel, which got me interested in the idea of experimenting with dosing some of my beers, along with a commercial NA lager with some glycerine to determine to effects of this compound, and how much of a difference it could make. Previous to this experiment, I had dosed my beer glasses with unmeasured quantities in some of my other beers to some success, in this experiment I make a more documented and measured assessment.

Impact of Glycerine in the Finished Beer

For this experiment, I chose 3 different styles of beer with different ABV levels to assess the impact different dosage rates of glycerine has on different alcohol contents and flavours of beers. One being a commercial lager, and the other two being my own homebrewed beer, a stout, and an English IPA. The glycerine I purchased has a usage quantity of 3-5ml/L and is often used for distilling and/or wine making.

PROCESS

I set out 4 sampling cups for each style of beer, I filled 1 with a sample of the beer to get a baseline of the flavour and body, and the remaining 3 cups got dosed with varying amounts of glycerine, then each topped up with the specific beer style to the 100ml mark for an equal evaluation of 0.2ml/100ml, 0.5ml/100ml, and 1.0ml/100ml.

The tasting was conducted in the same manner for each style of beer. The baseline beer was sampled initially, and between each dosed sample to get an evaluation of the prescribed quantity of glycerine. Then comparing each dosed quantity with each other to determine the best result.

Left: Pure Glycerine

Right: Test 1, Commercial Lager 0.5% abv

Left: Test 2, Homebrewed Stout 0.3% abv

Right: Test 3, Homebrewed English IPA 1.7% abv

RESULTS

Three different beers and three ABV levels meant a lot of samples. I chose a commercial Lager that was listed as 0.5% abv, a homebrewed stout that was brewed to 0.3% abv, and an English IPA that was brewed to 1.7%.

(Commercial) Lager 0.5% abv

– 0.0ml (Base)
Low-medium body and mouthfeel, low level of sweetness in line with style.
– 0.2ml/100ml
Slight increase in body and mouthfeel, similar sweetness to base sample.
– 0.5ml/100ml
Large increase in body/mouthfeel, slight increase in sweetness on the aftertaste.
– 1.0ml/100ml
Big increase in mouthfeel and body, but also a large increase in a sweet syrup after-taste.
Overall:
Between 0.2 and 0.5ml/100ml would be an ideal dosage, I believe 0.30-0.35ml/100ml would be an ideal dose for this light style to imitate a full bodied beer.

(Homebrew) Stout 0.3% abv

– 0.0ml (Base)
Medium body and mouthfeel, low level of sweetness in line with style.
– 0.2ml/100ml
Slight increase in body and mouthfeel, similar sweetness to base sample.
– 0.5ml/100ml
Notable increase in body/mouthfeel, slight increase in sweetness on the aftertaste.
– 1.0ml/100ml
Big increase in mouthfeel and body, but also an increase in an artificial sweet syrup after-taste.
Overall:
Between 0.2 and 0.5ml/100ml would be an ideal dosage, I believe 0.3-0.35ml/100ml would be an ideal dose for this dark style with heavy roast flavours to imitate a full bodied beer.

(Homebrew) English IPA 1.7% abv

– 0.0ml (Base)
Medium-full body and mouthfeel, low-medium level of sweetness in line with style.
– 0.2ml/100ml
Slight increase in body and mouthfeel, similar sweetness to base sample.
– 0.5ml/100ml
Large increase in body/mouthfeel, slight increase in sweetness on the aftertaste.
– 1.0ml/100ml
Big increase in mouthfeel and body, but also an increase in an artificial sweet syrup after-taste.
Overall:
Between 0.2 and 0.5ml/100ml would be an ideal dosage, I believe 0.3-0.35ml/100ml would be an ideal dose for this crystal heavy style to imitate a full bodied beer.

After sampling each cup and gathering my test results, I conceded to the fact that despite a large difference in flavours between each of the 3 beers, they all showed the same or a similar result in the rates of glycerine mixed into the samples. Knowing 1.0ml/100ml would be way above an acceptable level, it was still used as a tolerance test to understand the effect of “how much is too much”. The consensus between each style was that 0.2ml/100ml had a slight increase in mouthfeel and body without a noticeable increase of sweetness, whereas the 0.5ml/100ml sample had a substantial increase in mouthfeel and body with a slight increase in sweetness. This drew me to the conclusion that a dosage rate between 0.3-0.35ml/100ml (3-3.5ml/L) would be an ideal quantity to add to the finished beer to increase the texture, and to give the perception of a full bodied beer with increased mouthfeel without increasing the perception of sweetness beyond the style.

The only draw back to adding extra glycerine to the beer would be an increase in calories, which can sometimes be an unwanted addition for some brewers looking for a healthy alternative. With most low and no alcohol beer being a style that is already low in calories (due to the lack of alcohol), we can turn a blind eye to this slight increase as a positive trade-off for what could be a better beer.

METHODS MADE SIMPLE | Mash Temperatures

As any brewer knows, mash temperature matters a great deal, but the traditional temperatures of regular brewing don’t really apply to brewing NA/LA beers. With some traditional methods, you can expect to see step mashing through various temperatures to increase efficiency and quality of the final beer, but these days with such highly modified malts, a single infusion temperature has become the standard process, depending on the style and fermentability, brewers generally aim to mash between 60-68ºC (140-154ºF).

Different mash temperatures activate different enzyme activity, the two major enzymes brewers are focused on are Alpha (α) Amylase and Beta (β) Amylase. These enzymes promote different aspects to the wort, with β-Amylase favouring a temperature range between 55-66ºC (131-151ºF), this enzyme helps break down starches into maltose and fewer dextrins, resulting in a higher concentration of fermentable sugars and greater attenuation, whereas α-Amylase favours a temperature range of 68-72ºC (154-161ºF), breaking down the starches into smaller chains, creating a more dextrinous and less fermentable wort allowing the β-Amylase to break the starches down further into fermentable sugars. Both enzymes are considered to be fairly active around standard mash temperatures of 65-67ºC (149-152ºF), allowing brewers to create a wort that is largely fermentable.

Mashing above these favoured temperature ranges can denature the enzymes, rendering the wort less fermentable due to the reduces maltose production, by favouring the α-Amylase activity on the high temperature side, we denature the β-Amylase enzyme and produce a wort consisting of more dextrins and less fermentable sugars, resulting in less attenuation and a lower ABV with a greater body and mouthfeel.

With NA/LA brewing, we like to push these temperatures to the extreme to create a less fermentable wort, resulting in an increased body and mouthfeel, maintaining a low abv. My go to temperature to mash is 80ºC (176ºF), I find this temperature creates a great balance of low fermentability and medium to full body/mouthfeel, without any unwanted tannin extraction.

Effects of Mash Temperature

In this experiment, we look to compare 2 different mash temperatures to determine the difference in flavour, colour, fermentability, and body/mouthfeel. We will brew 2 batches of the exact same recipe side-by-side, with the only variable being temperature. 1 batch will be mashed at the higher end of the α-Amylase range at 72ºC (161ºF), and the other batch at a much higher temperature of 82ºC (180ºF), both for 30 minutes each.

For this experiment, we will be brewing an English IPA, a style.

“English IPA”

Batch Size: 22 L

MASH TIME	BOIL TIME	IBU	EBC	EST. OG	EST. FG	ABV
30 mins	30 mins	41.0	15 EBC	1.010	1.008	0.30 %
			Actuals	1.013	1.000	0.00 %

Grain Bill

NAME	AMOUNT	%
Simpsons Maris Otter	500g	53.3
Simpsons Crystal Light	180g	19.2
Weyermann Carapils	128g	13.6
Joe White Maltings Light Munich	109g	11.6
Simpsons Crystal Dark	22g	2.3

Hop Schedule

NAME	AMOUNT	TIME	USE	FORM	ALPHA %
Cascade	6 g	30 min	Boil	Pellet	7.0
Centennial	5 g	30 min	Boil	Pellet	10.5
Fuggles	5.4 g	5 min	Boil	Pellet	4.5
Styrian Goldings	6 g	5 min	Boil	Pellet	5.5
Cascade	6.5 g	10 min	Aroma	Pellet	7.0
Fuggles	6.5 g	10 min	Aroma	Pellet	4.5
Cascade	35 g	4 days	Dry Hop	Pellet	7.0

Yeast

NAME	LAB	ATTENUATION	TEMPERATURE
LalBrew London	Lallemand	35% (Est.)	19°C

Other

NAME	Amount	Time	Use
Whirlfloc	½ Tablet	10 mins	Fining Agent

Water Profile: Ca²⁺61 | Mg²⁺ 2 | Na⁺ 18 | Cl⁻ 33 | SO₄²⁻ 114 | HCO₃⁻ 43

To start off with, we collect our mash water amounts for each batch and mill our grains, we bring the water for our first batch up to our strike temperature of 73ºC (163ºF). Once we reach our strike temperature, our grain and our water adjustments are added to the kettle and left to mash for 30 minutes at 72ºC (161ºF). After 10 minutes we start on the second batch, bringing the water to a strike temperature of 83ºC (181ºF), add our grain and our water adjustments to the kettle and mash for 30 minutes at 82ºC (179ºF).

Once the first batch has completed its mash, we remove and squeeze the bag to drain the remaining wort, top up our brew kettle with 2ltrs of water, then check our pre-boil gravity and proceed with the boil.

Once the wort of the first batch has reached a boil, we start the timer for 30 minutes and add our first hop additions, continuing our way through the hop schedule and Whirlfloc. Once the second batch is completed mashing, we then check our pre-boil gravity and proceed with the boil.

Left: 72ºC Mash Pre-Boil Gravity 1.012

Right: 82ºC Mash Pre-Boil Gravity 1.010

Once both of the boils are complete, we take a sample to measure our post-boil gravity, which will be our starting gravity (SG) before transferring the hot wort to our HDPE cube to cool down to pitching temperature overnight.

Left: 72ºC Mash Post-Boil Gravity 1.015

Right: 82ºC Mash Post-Boil Gravity 1.013

Once both of the worts have cooled down to our pitching temperature of 19ºC (66ºF), we pre-acidify to 4.6pH with a lactic acid addition and pitch half a pack (5.5g) of Lallemand London yeast into each cube and left to ferment in the fermentation chamber for 7 days.

With 4 days left of our fermentation schedule, we add our dry hop additions.

Once we have ensured we have reached our FG, we cold crash at 2ºC (35.6ºF) for 2 days, then transfer to the kegs for carbonation and conditioning for 2 weeks.

RESULTS

– 72ºC (161ºF) Mash: SG: 1.015, FG: 1.005, = 1.3% ABV

– 82ºC (179ºF) Mash: SG: 1.013, FG: 1.008 = 0.7% ABV

Appearance:

Both have a lovely deep golden/copper colour, with nice clarity. Beautiful foam upon pours with a lasting sticky foam.

Aroma:

Malty, with prominent light toffee/caramel aroma, with complimenting floral and citrus hop aromas.

Taste:

Full bodied, smooth bitterness with a smooth, slightly sweet crystal/caramel malt flavour, delicate floral flavour with a nice orange, and grapefruit citrus taste.

Overall First Impressions:

This is a very nice example of an English IPA, with a great balance of sweet crystal flavours and aromas complimenting the floral and citrus hop flavours and a lovely golden copper like colour. It does lack a little in the bitterness due to the sweetness the crystal malts brings, but an increase in IBUs would correct this. As is, this beer is fantastic and something I could enjoy all year round!

Comparing samples of both beers side by side, both are very similar in all aspects except for taste. They both have the same level of body and mouthfeel, though I noted the 72ºC (161ºF) beer to have a higher perceived sweetness. I feel this increase in body and sweetness comes from the increase in alcohol in the lower temperature beer, matching the body of the higher dextrinous beer mashed at 82ºC (179ºF).

By having two exact batches with the only variable being mash temperature, we could certainly expect to see a difference in our wort composition. What we found was that the higher mash temperature yielded a lower original gravity of 1.013, whereas the lower mash temperature yielded a higher original gravity of 1.015, which points us towards the belief that we denatured more of the active enzymes the higher the temperature reaches, resulting in a lower conversion of the starches, and creating a lower gravity wort. Which in turn results in a lower abv beer.

With both beers having the same fermentation schedule and dry hop amounts, we could also note a difference in final gravity between both beers. The high temperature mash beer finishing with a higher final gravity at 1.008 and the lower mash temperature at 1.005, meaning we observed a difference of 0.003.

What we find with the higher mash temperature, is that not only are we creating a lower starting gravity, but we are also creating low fermentability, resulting in low attenuation and a higher final gravity, making a lower abv beer. From this experiment, we can conclude that the high mash temperature is the preferred temperature to assist in developing non-alcoholic beer.

METHODS MADE SIMPLE | Full Volume Mash vs Boil Kettle Dilution

As many brewers have come across in their pursuit of higher efficiency, liquor-to-grist ratios have been rumoured to make a big difference to their mash efficiency, and lautering. But many BIABers choose to use a full volume mash rather than split their volume into mash and sparge. While there are many “correct” ratios to follow, it’s what works best for the individual brewer, and their equipment that is the best approach. With the plethora of information available on the subject, it’s easy to get mixed up in what’s right, and what’s wrong, too thick of a mash and you can run into recirculation issues, reduced efficiency, and blocked pumps. Thin or full volume mashes can reduce the available space in mash tuns for large grain bills, ultimately affecting the gravity of the wort.

Mash thickness has often been stated to be irrelevant and disproven by many BIABers achieving great efficiency regardless. Some literature points to thin mashes being higher in extract yield by diluting the enzymes responsible for conversion, making it easier to convert and dissolve the sugars into the wort. Thick mashes can reduce the yield by trapping the starches and enzymes within the grain bed, preventing full conversion, and resulting in a less fermentable wort of greater quality and increased maltiness, often requiring increased recirculation and/or extended sparging to extract these trapped sugars. When it comes to extremely thin mashes such as those used in ultra-low/NA brewing, it has been noted as being less efficient due to the greater volume of water over-diluting the enzymes ability for conversion, preventing them from attaching to, and breaking apart the starch molecules.

So what does this mean for our low gravity brewing? Should we be using a thick mash to decrease our efficiency and increase the flavour and body of our beer then top up our boil kettle to reach our full volume? Or should we be over diluting our mash to full volumes to decrease our efficiency? We take a look at.

Full Volume Mash vs Boil Kettle Dilution

For this experiment, we will run two separate mash volumes to determine the difference in efficiency, fermentability and of course, taste. One batch will be run with a full volume mash, and the other will be mashed with a lower liquor-to-grist ratio, then topped up to our full volume in the boil kettle.

Aussie Lager

BATCH SIZE	MASH TIME	BOIL TIME	IBU	EBC	EST. OG	EST. FG	ABV
8.5L	30 mins	30 mins	26.0	7.9 EBC	1.008	1.006	0.30 %
				Actuals	1.007	1.005	0.30 %

Grain Bill

NAME	AMOUNT	%
JWM Munich, Light	240g	35.3
Simpsons Maris Otter	240g	35.3
Flaked Barley	130g	19.1
Weyermann Melanoidin	70g	10.3

Hop Schedule

NAME	AMOUNT	TIME	USE	FORM	ALPHA %
Super Pride	5.0g	30 min	Boil	Pellet	14.5
Super Pride	5.0g	10 min	Boil	Pellet	14.5

Yeast

NAME	LAB	ATTENUATION	TEMPERATURE
M54 California Lager	Mangrove Jack	33% (Est.)	19°C

Water Profile: Ca²⁺64 | Mg²⁺ 9 | Na⁺ 39 | Cl⁻ 98 | SO₄²⁻ 127 | HCO₃⁻ 16

To start, we collect our mash water volumes for each batch and measure our grain bills. Having one mash kettle with our full volume of water and salt additions, and the other having the water and salts split between the mash kettle and the boil kettle for a lower liquor-to-grist volume during the mash.

Full volume mash salts

Split salts for mash and boil

Staggering each batch by 10 minutes to allow for us to have a good flow, we bring the water for the full volume batch up to our strike temperature of 82ºC (179ºF). Once we reach our strike temperature, our water adjustments are added to the kettle, stirred and our grains are added and left to mash for 30 minutes at 80ºC. After 10 minutes we start on the second batch.

Our second batch is split between a 5 litre mash water quantity and a 7 litre boil kettle dilution, including our water chemistry additions. The mash water is heated to our strike temperature of 81ºC (179ºF). Once we reach our strike temperature, our split water adjustments are added to the mash kettle, stirred and our grains are added and left to mash for 30 minutes at 80ºC.

Full volume mash

Split volume mash

Once the first batch has completed its mash, we remove and squeeze the bag to drain the remaining wort, check our pre-boil gravity, and transfer our full volume to our boil kettle and commence the boil.

Once the wort of the first batch has reached a boil, we start the timer for 30 minutes and add our first hop additions, continuing our way through the hop schedule. With 5 minutes left of the boil, we add our acid addition to lower the pH to our pre-ferment level of 4.7.

When the second batch is completed mashing, we transfer our wort to the boil kettle where the 7 litres of our treated dilution water is heated to 80ºC, check our pre-boil gravity, and proceed with the same boil schedule, hop additions and and acid addition.

SG 1.006 Full volume mash

SG 1.015 Split volume before dilution

SG 1.006 Split volume after dilution

Once both of the boils are complete, we take a sample to measure our post-boil gravities, which will be our starting gravity (SG) and to ensure we’ve reached our target pH level before transferring the hot wort to our HDPE cube to cool down to pitching temperature.

Full volume mash

Split volume mash

Once both of the worts have cooled down to our pitching temperature of 19ºC (66ºF), we pitch half a pack (5.0g) of Mangrove Jack M54 California Lager yeast into each cube and left to ferment in the fermentation chamber for 7 days. Once we have ensured we have reached our terminal FG, we cold crash at 2ºC (35.6ºF) for 4 days, then transfer to the kegs for carbonation and conditioning for 2 weeks.

Full volume final gravity SG 1.006

Split volume final gravity 1.005

Left: Split Volume Mash | Right: Full Volume Mash

RESULTS

– Full Volume: OG: 1.0075, FG: 1.006, = 0.3% ABV

– Boil Kettle Dilution: OG: 1.007, FG: 1.005 = 0.3% ABV

Appearance:

Crisp golden hue with a thick white foamy head.

Aroma:

Beery, malty, bready with a subtle citrus.

Taste:

Full bodied, bready/breadcrust, malty, medium-high bitterness, perfect carbonation. Faint citrus on the back end of the palette.

Overall Impressions:

Side by side, the low mash volume with a kettle dilution had an ever so slightly better mouthfeel and body compared to the full volume mash, but not enough to be a standout. While both beers were quite similar flavour wise the full volume mash finished 0.1 of a pH lower and seems to ever so slightly come through in the finish as a very minor sour twang (though barely there), which could have had a difference in the final mouthfeel. Initially the young beer had a lot of flavours still to mellow, being high in melanoidin malt it was quite overpowering with a rich bready crust/toast flavour, but after lagering on gas for many weeks, everything has balanced and taste amazing making this a perfect beer for the hot summer.

Final Thoughts

By having two exact batches with the only variable being the mash volume, we could expect to see some sort of difference in our wort composition. Instead, what we found was both batches having the same pre boil gravities and fermenter volume post boil, they also ended up with almost identical gravities post fermentation, meaning there was no substantial differences between mashing with our full volume, and mashing with a lower grist/liquor ratio and diluting in our boil kettle besides having to take more steps and calculations, which in turn means more work on brew day. The slight difference in mouthfeel and overall taste wasn’t large enough to be considered an improvement from one process over the other, and the other little variables that were present, are minute and they would be chalked up to user caused and not relevant to the different processes.

Going forward, this seems like another experiment I would like to revisit to see if I yield similar results or indeed a change in efficiency and/or overall mouthfeel, perhaps with an XPA? Being another light beer style, it would surely show through in the final results, as well trying with a heavily malted beer such as a stout.

With the current results, there doesn’t seem to be enough reason to switch from my “ease of process” full volume mashing if lieu of a post mash dilution. More tests and improved results across various styles would be needed to convince me it’s worth an extra step.

If you have any questions, or thoughts about this experiment, or are considering making or testing something similar, please feel free to get in touch with us to discuss your idea and thoughts!

Effects of Mash pH in Low and No Alcohol Brewing

As most brewers have read or been told, the pH of your mash matters a lot, some brewers are unsure why? And adjust their pH because it’s what everyone recommends, or what they’ve been told to do to make better beer. The reason pH matters so much is because there is an optimum pH range for enzymatic conversion of the starches extracted from the grains, a proper mash pH contributes to better flavour, improved conversion, and improved stability. The optimum range is between 5.2-5.6 pH and should be measured at room temperature with a correctly calibrated pH meter, if you measure the pH at mash temperatures, the higher temperature can cause a lower reading by 0.35, and what might be a perfect 5.4 pH at room temperature may be 5.05 pH at mash temperature and could quickly panic an unseasoned brewer.

Wandering outside of this optimum range is not a recommended practice and can cause many issues such as; inefficiency of conversion, off flavours, and reduced body and mouthfeel, it can also cause a less than ideal environment for yeast growth and overall health. Mashing too high >5.8 pH has been spoken to cause increased tannin extraction, increased malt colour compounds causing a darker beer (favouring dark beers), increased harshness, or astringency from increased hop acid solubility. Mashing too low <5.0 pH has been stated to reduce extraction of malt colour compounds (favouring light beers), increased protein coagulation and greater “hot break” (causing clearer wort), reduced hop acid solubility (less/softer bitterness and flavour), reduced alpha-amylase enzyme, cleaving of proteins making a thinner body and mouthfeel, and reducing foam positive properties.

While some brewers have noted very little difference in their finished beer, others have been able to distinguish slight changes. This may be fine for regular brewing, but what about brewing low/no alcohol beers? How does this change affect the finished beer? Considering low/no brewers are already pushing the traditional boundaries with mashing techniques, utilising greater mash temperatures, higher specialty grain and adjunct percentages, and lower bittering units. Another thing with low/no alcohol brewing is the pre-acidification of the wort prior to pitching the yeast to a food safe level of 4.6 or below… What if a brewer was to mash at our target pre-pitch pH around 4.6, rather than standard mash pH around 5.2-5.6? And what kind of beer are we making if we’re using un-adjusted scheme water mash?

We took this opportunity to investigate, and push for a greater understanding of brewing Low and No alc beers.

Mash pH Effects of Low/No alcohol Beer

With many brewers stating the important of mash pH, we put to test the effects of low and high mash pH in the making of low/no alc beer. With higher mash temperatures, higher specialty grain and adjunct percentages, and lower grain amounts, we investigate how much an impact mash pH affects the final beer. In this experiment we will be brewing a simple Aussie style Lager, a style that doesn’t have much room to hide any flaws, and any increased differences should become quite discernible. We will brew three batches exactly the same side by side, with the only variable being the pH of the wort during the mash. Keeping the water mineral adjustments as similar as possible, one batch will be lowered using Lactic acid to a pH of 4.7 (approx. pre-pitch acidification level), then next will be adjusted to 5.2 (standard mash pH), and the last raised to 6.4pH (approx. un-altered scheme water pH). I’ve also omitted any fining/clarity agents to the hot side to get a sense of how the pH affects turbidity, colour, and flavour.

BATCH SIZE	MASH TIME	BOIL TIME	IBU	EBC	EST. OG	EST. FG	ABV
12.0L	30 mins	30 mins	19.0	11.2 EBC	1.006	1.004	0.3 %
FV Volume				Actuals	1.008	1.004	0.5 %

Taste Maker Lager

Grain Bill

NAME	AMOUNT	%
Maris Otter (Simpsons)	228g	31.2
Munich, Light (Joe White Maltings)	204g	27.9
Carapils (Weyermann)	102g	13.9
Crystal, Light (Simpsons)	102g	13.9
Flaked Barley (Blue Lake Malting)	96g	13.1

Hop Schedule

NAME	AMOUNT	TIME	USE	FORM	ALPHA %
Super Pride (Aus.)	3.5 g	30 min	Boil	Pellet	13.3
Saaz (Czech)	20.0 g	5 min	Boil	Pellet	14.5

Yeast

NAME	LAB	ATTENUATION	TEMPERATURE
M54 California Lager	Mangrove Jack	33% (Est.)	19°C – 20°C

Water Profile: Ca²⁺52 | Mg²⁺ 2 | Na⁺ 17 | Cl⁻ 57 | SO₄²⁻ 78 | HCO₃⁻ 16

Base Mash Water Profile

To start off with, we collect our mash water amounts for each batch, staggering each batch to allow for us to have a good flow we bring the water for our first batch up to our strike temperature of 82ºC (179ºF). Once we reach our strike temperature, our grain and our water adjustments are added to the kettle, receiving a small dose of 88% lactic acid to target our mash pH to 4.7. Once that gets going, we start on the second batch, bringing the water to the same strike temperature of 82ºC (179ºF), add our grain and water adjustments to the kettle for our middle pH beer of 5.2. We move to get the third under way. Once again bringing the water to the same strike temperature of 82ºC (179ºF), add our grain and water adjustments to the kettle and a small dose of baking soda (NaCHO3) to raise the target mash pH of ~6.4.

Low pH Mash

Regular pH Mash

High pH Mash

Aiming for a 30 minute mash cycle on each of the beers, we check each batch at the 10 minutes mark of mashing. We take a quick pH reading to ensure we are on target for each of pH levels, and each left to mash for a further 20 minutes each at 80-81ºC (176ºF).

Low mash pH 4.7

Regular Mash pH 5.24

High Mash pH 6.41

Once the first batch has completed its mash, we remove and squeeze the bag to drain the remaining wort, we then check our pre-boil gravity and proceed with the boil.

Low pH mash 1.008 SG

Regular pH mash 1.008 SG

High pH mash 1.008 SG

Once the wort of the first batch has reached a boil, we start the timer for 30 minutes and add our first hop additions, continuing our way through the hop schedule. Doing the same for the other two batches.

Once the boils are complete, we take a sample to measure our post-boil gravities, which will be our starting gravity (SG) before transferring the hot worts to our HDPE cubes to cool down to pitching temperature, we also make our pre-pitch acidification adjustments to 4.5.

Low pH wort

Regular pH wort

High pH wort

Once the worts have cooled down to our pitching temperature of 19ºC (66ºF), we pitch half a pack (5.0g) of Mangrove Jack M54 California Lager yeast into each cube and are left to ferment in the fermentation chamber for 7 days. Once we have ensured we have reached our FG, we cold crash at 4ºC (39.2ºF) for 4 days, then transfer to the kegs for carbonation and conditioning for 2 weeks. We then take some samples to test, then add gelatine to fine, and test again.

Low pH FG 1.005 SG

Regular pH FG 1.005 SG

High pH FG 1.006 SG

Left to Right: High pH mashed beer, Normal pH mashed beer, Low pH mashed beer.

(Before finings)

Note: High pH mashed beer quite dark and cloudy in appearance compared to the lower pH beers.

Left to Right: Low pH mashed beer, Normal pH mashed beer, High pH mashed beer

(Early samples after finings)

Note: High pH mashed beer still quite dark in appearance compared to the lower pH beers. And the low pH mashed beer quite light.

RESULTS

High pH:

Aroma: Clean, low aroma, muted hop, muted malt, beery.
Flavour: Muted/low malt flavour, clean, beery taste, medium-low mouthfeel, slightly watery, crisp (odd hop flavour), low-medium bitterness, slight graininess.
Overall: The taste is very simple, but also not quite right, lacking any solid malt flavour, and had a strange hop flavour with a dryer, slightly sharper bitterness.
Normal pH:
Aroma: Clean, low aroma, low hop, low malt, beery.
Flavour: smooth malty presence with medium mouthfeel, balanced and smooth bitterness, crisp but not drying.
Overall: Better than the high and low pH beers, with a better malt balance and bitterness. Flavours seem to be more rounded, rather than out of balance.
Low pH:
Aroma: Clean, low aroma, low hop aroma, low malt aroma, beery.
Flavour: malty, bready, beery, medium bitterness, low floral hop presence, smooth with medium mouthfeel, medium but smooth bitterness with a touch of sweetness.
Overall: Much better than the High pH beer, really solid malt presence with plenty of melanoidin presence adding some bready/toasty flavours. Smooth soft bitterness that balances well.

During the brew day, there weren’t any discernible differences between any of the beers, they all had a post mash/pre-boil gravity of 1.008, and a post boil/OG of 1.010, the only difference observed was a slight difference in FG post fermentation, with the high pH mashed beer finishing at 1.006 compared to the other 2 beers having a lower FG of 1.005.

Comparing the three beers initially without finings, it’s clear to see the impact pH makes in colour and turbidity alone, with the high mash pH being quite dark and cloudy compared to the normal and low pH’s having much lighter hues and clearer appearances. Even after the addition of gelatine, you can still note a darker appearance and slightly more haze in the high pH mashed beer. As for a sensory evaluation, the flavours seemed to vary enough to distinguish, but a drop in mouthfeel/body wasn’t detected in the low pH mashed beer as expected from the implication of cleaving proteins at low pH levels, rather it showed a drop in mouthfeel/body in the High pH mashed beer.

The High pH mashed beer produced quite a muted malt and hop flavour, and a higher/sharper bitterness with a touch of graininess coming through, also having a slightly thinner/reduced mouthfeel, frankly… The high pH mash produce a beer that lacked in nearly every aspect and tasted very one dimensional.

The low pH mashed beer had the biggest malt flavour and a smoother, softer bitterness that allowed some floral flavours to shine through, along with a good medium mouthfeel. The increase in maltiness seemed a little out of place (perhaps more suited to an Oktoberfest/Festbier/Märzen), as the Melanoidin focused malts compensate for this in a regular pH mash and the low pH seemed to enhance these flavours much further. This would easily be corrected in recipe adjustments. Overall I was surprisingly impressed with the outcome of this beer.

The normal pH mashed beer seemed to be the more balanced beer of the three, with a good balance of malt presence not being to overbearing or underwhelming, pairing with a smooth but crisp bitterness that allowed some dryness to come through on the back end as per most Aussie Lagers. Having a respectable amount of body and mouthfeel seemed to be on par with the low pH beer.

CONCLUSION

So what do we learn from this experiment? We can say with certainty that each of these pH levels will produce a drinkable beer (some of course better than others), we should still be aiming for a suitable pH target around the 5.1-5.4 mark for a more balanced flavour profile unless you factor the increases and losses of certain aspects into your recipe development. The results from mashing around our pre-pitch target (pH 4.5-4.7), shows that we can still produce a full flavoured beer that has a richer maltiness, and that could really benefit brewing with such small grain bills. Another point is being such a low pH during the boil, it also aids in a smoother bitterness from the hops. It may also help reduce extra steps through the brew day by eliminating acid adjustments and calculations pre-pitch, provided rises in pH from hop additions are factored into the original acidification.

Going forward, it has me thinking… Could lowering the wort pH to 4.7 after the mash and pre- boil yield some better results in terms of reduced hop acid solubility and lower IBU levels, gaining a smoother, more flavourful hop presence? Which seems to be a common issue with many NA/LA beers suffering from excessive harshness from hop bitterness, this could be a key to bettering our processes and having more of a balance of flavours.

If you have any questions, or thoughts about this experiment, or are considering making or testing something similar, please feel free to get in touch with us to discuss your idea and thoughts!