This may be heresy, but...

[Steelbacks]

This may be heresy, but I'm just incurably inquisitive. To some of you it may also be a really stupid question, but as I'm new to brewing, you probably shouldn't expect anything better from me. Anyway, here goes.

In really simple terms, brewing beer starts with boiling up some grains and drawing off the liquid to use as food for yeast to turn into alcohol. Sparging rinses the grain to remove more of the sugars, flavours, etc. from the grains, but too much sparging can sometimes produce an 'off' flavour (?). However, distillers often produce a mash and leave the whole grains in for the duration of the ferment. Some even use partly milled/ground grains (even flour) in their mash. So, is it possible to brew beer and leave the grains in for the whole ferment? Can one use flour to ferment with rather than whole grains or rolled grains, or is this only suitable for producing a mash for distilling and completely unsuitable for beer production? I can see that flour would cause problems with sparging, but one wouldn't be doing that. Other than that I can't see any reason why this would affect the ferment, only the flavour of the final product. Any thoughts?

 

[Bigcol49]

Hi!

This may be heresy

Burn him, burn him! :laugh2:

In really simple terms, brewing beer starts with boiling up some grains and drawing off the liquid to use as food for yeast to turn into alcohol.

Brewers don't boil grains - they mash the crushed grains to make the sweet wort. It's the wort that's boiled, not the grains.
It isn't good practice to ferment the grains - there's a lot of tannin that will be extracted and that will certainly affect the flavour of the beer.

 

[Steelbacks]

I knew that... just didn't get it down quite right in my eagerness to ask my question. Thanks for the reply though. People have been very friendly and helpful since I joined. Thanks for that!

I suppose my question is still, can you brew without soaking the grains and producing a wort? If the tannins come from the outer parts of the grain, can one use a 'white' flour which has had the husks, bran, etc removed to make a mash and brew directly without making a wort in the traditional way. I'm guessing that there'd be more for the yeast to feed on and turn into alcohol and the use of amylase might be beneficial? If white flour alone wouldn't give much flavour, could one mix flour with a traditional wort to feed the yeast instead of adding sugar?

I also have a similar question, though not directly connected... is it possible to bake bread, put it through a blender afterwards, then use this as a base for a mash to brew with? Has anyone tried it? How did it taste?

I'm also curious about the difference between conditioning in different containers. Obviously glass is inert and doesn't change the flavour, but go back far enough and wooden barrels would have been used. Does the wood have much impact on flavour if you condition in wooden casks? Has anyone added wooden blocks to their conditioning keg to see if it has any impact on flavour?

Crazy questions maybe, I know, but hopefully not too stupid!

 

[VW911]

There are quite a few breweries substituting bread for some of the grains.
Fat-Tongued Jamie Oliver did a programme on it iirc...

 

[terrym]

No one boils grains.... do they?

 

[Thumper]

Flour on it's own wouldn't work. When you malt barley you essentially let it germinate and then stop the process by drying it. This means the grain is full of enzymes that turn starch into sugar. When you mash, you activate these enzymes. They turn the starch in the grain to sugars (which under normal circumstances the plant would use as fuel to grow), you extract the sugars and use it to feed your yeast.

Flour does not contain these enzymes, because the grains it's made from aren't malted. So flour on it's own wouldn't work.

You could mix some flour in with some pale malt, I suppose. It would provide starch, so mixed with grain with a high enough diastatic power it could in turn provide sugar. But you then have to work out how you would separate that flour from the wort, as I imagine traditional sparging methods couldn't deal with it- you'd get a stuck sparge.

 

[IainM]

This may be heresy, but I'm just incurably inquisitive. To some of you it may also be a really stupid question, but as I'm new to brewing, you probably shouldn't expect anything better from me. Anyway, here goes.

In really simple terms, brewing beer starts with boiling up some grains and drawing off the liquid to use as food for yeast to turn into alcohol. Sparging rinses the grain to remove more of the sugars, flavours, etc. from the grains, but too much sparging can sometimes produce an 'off' flavour (?). However, distillers often produce a mash and leave the whole grains in for the duration of the ferment. Some even use partly milled/ground grains (even flour) in their mash. So, is it possible to brew beer and leave the grains in for the whole ferment? Can one use flour to ferment with rather than whole grains or rolled grains, or is this only suitable for producing a mash for distilling and completely unsuitable for beer production? I can see that flour would cause problems with sparging, but one wouldn't be doing that. Other than that I can't see any reason why this would affect the ferment, only the flavour of the final product. Any thoughts?

A couple of things here:

(1) Fermenting on the grain. I've never heard of distillers fermenting with the grains in, but instead drain off the wort and dispose of the spent grain as animal feed. It wouldn't make sense to ferment with the grain, as it is more efficient to seperate the liquid from the grain when the liquid is hot after the mash. Then again, I don't know that much about whiskey making. As far as I know nobody ferments beer with the grain still in there either. This is because the wort needs to be boiled with hops for multiple reasons (to sterilise it, to chemically modify and extract components from the hops, drive off unpleasant volatiles, to cause cross-reactions of the sugars etc...). Boiling grains extracts astringent tannins from the grain, although sometimes a small portion of the grains are boiled during the mash in some traditional German brewing techniques, in order to be re-introduced and raise the heat of the mash. That said, there is such a thing as raw beer, which isn't boiled at all, but these have very short shelf lives and in the best case go sour and in the worst are described with words like "vomit" and "faeces".

(2) Using flour. Flour can be added to a grain bill, and indeed there are recipes on this forum that call for it. However, it isn't a common ingredient and only a small amount is used, for two reasons: (a) while strong flour does how the ability to convert starches to sugar, it doesn't have enough diastatic power to convert completely, so other more powerful grains are required which can convert themselves and the rest of the flour. (b) flour gets very gummy, so using more than a small amount would make it very difficult or impossible to drain off the liquid (lautering).

I think you might be confused as to how grains are processed in brewing. Grains are never used whole or "partly milled/ground". They are always milled, usually coarsely, which seperates the husk (the bit on the outside) from the endosperm (the bit on the inside). This process producs some flour, which I and I think most other brewers include in the mash. This is normal practice for both whiskey and beer brewing.

 

[-Bezza-]

Fat-Tongued Jamie Oliver did a programme on it iirc...

It was a company called Toast Ale, who also work in collaboration with a few other breweries. Their concept is to turn waste bread into beer, which seems a perfectly respectable thing to do. They still use grain in the recipe though - it's online. 25l uses 3.8kg grain, 500g oats and 1.5kg breadcrumbs.

https://www.toastale.com/toast-ale-recipe/

 

[Dexter101]

Think I am right that a lot of the new NEIPA's that are coming out add flours to their mash to give it that cloudy "heavily hopped" look...

 

[Fil]

grains are natures way to store energy in the form of starch. in order to ferment them we need that starch converted into simple sugars that yeast can consume.

malting barley produces a grain rich in the enzymes brewers employ to convert starch to sugar during the mashing process.
i think they are produced by the sprouting of the grain but????

there are 2 classes of enzymes employed one which breaks off ' large chunks of complex sugars' from the starch these are generally too complex for yeast to consume, and then a 2nd class of enzymes munch down the complex sugars into simple sugars (maltose) that the yeast can consume.. the body and mouthfeel of a beer is generally due to the residual complex sugars in a brew that did not get munched down..

post mash beer brewers boil the wort to
1) sanitise
2) reduce volume (increase gravity)
3) add hop flavour
4) achieve breaks to increase clarity of final product
5) the temp over 85c will denature the enzymes (kill em) and set the profile of the beer (complex/simple sugar mix)

and produce the ideal start for the yeast.

distillers will leave the mash with its grain in and ferment the wine/base without boiling which will allow the enzymes to slowly (due to reduced temp) continue breaking down the complex sugars for slightly higher efficiency.. If this is done with a beer the result will be a thinner more watery product unless you raised the mash temp above 85c before fermenting. and then there is the risk of contamination due to the non sterile grain bulk left in, less of an issue with distilling as that process will separate out the ethanol.

so you can brew with any starch that you mash either with malted barley or by introducing enzymes another way But barley produces maltose and related complex sugars that make NICE beer, other grains are used as adjuncts but in limited proportions upto 5% generally..

 

[simon12]

I think the confusion on here for some is I think steelbacks has read how to make whisky from corn and then read its the same process for beer. As fil already covered beer makers boil the beer after sparging with hops to get hop bitterness and flavour but it also kills the enzymes so the remaining unfermentable sugar remains unfermentable. When making a corn mash the corn is boiled so it releases the starch more freely after this when its cooled to below 70C 10% distillers malt is added as it can convert 10 times its weight due to much higher levels of enzymes (enzymes are frequently added as well) this can be left as it is and yeast pitched when it cools to the correct temp as the grain is unspargeable. Then the sugars continue to break down as the yeast ferments it as the enzymes still work at fermentation temps. Single malt whisky is made much the same as beer (with the same malt) but as there is no need for a boil the enzymes are still present whether its left on the grain or not. The corn method could be used with flour or and other starch source but I imagine to get the liquid off the grain you would need to let it settle for a long time and syphon it off the top, you could make beer like this and even add the liquid back to the grain while its still boiling (killing the enzymes) but I have no idea what it would be like.

Please delete if this is against the site rules for talking about distillation but I have made every effort to make it only how it relates to beer.

 

[Steelbacks]

Hi Simon. That's a great reply. Thanks for all the info. I think it would be more accurate to say that rather than thinking that fermenting for distilling is the same as for beer,mom wondering why the process is different, rather than the same. Thanks to some of the answers on this thread, the reasons are becoming a bit clearer... though there might be some room for experimentation?

 

[Steelbacks]

grains are natures way to store energy in the form of starch. in order to ferment them we need that starch converted into simple sugars that yeast can consume.

malting barley produces a grain rich in the enzymes brewers employ to convert starch to sugar during the mashing process.
i think they are produced by the sprouting of the grain but????

there are 2 classes of enzymes employed one which breaks off ' large chunks of complex sugars' from the starch these are generally too complex for yeast to consume, and then a 2nd class of enzymes munch down the complex sugars into simple sugars (maltose) that the yeast can consume.. the body and mouthfeel of a beer is generally due to the residual complex sugars in a brew that did not get munched down..

post mash beer brewers boil the wort to
1) sanitise
2) reduce volume (increase gravity)
3) add hop flavour
4) achieve breaks to increase clarity of final product
5) the temp over 85c will denature the enzymes (kill em) and set the profile of the beer (complex/simple sugar mix)

and produce the ideal start for the yeast.

distillers will leave the mash with its grain in and ferment the wine/base without boiling which will allow the enzymes to slowly (due to reduced temp) continue breaking down the complex sugars for slightly higher efficiency.. If this is done with a beer the result will be a thinner more watery product unless you raised the mash temp above 85c before fermenting. and then there is the risk of contamination due to the non sterile grain bulk left in, less of an issue with distilling as that process will separate out the ethanol.

so you can brew with any starch that you mash either with malted barley or by introducing enzymes another way But barley produces maltose and related complex sugars that make NICE beer, other grains are used as adjuncts but in limited proportions upto 5% generally..

Ok, so I think I understand most of what you've said, even if I don't know how to put it into practice yet. Adverts for packets of 'spray dried malt' make sense now, as does the use of amylase as the enzymes are killed off when boiling the wort. This leads me on to other questions though. Does spray dried malt (instead of sugar) make much difference to every brew, or is it only noticeable with certain recipes? Is there any benefit to using amylase when's a recipe doesn't call for it, or can it have a detrimental effect on the final 'product'? I could possibly see that it might allow more starches to be converted to alcohol, but might at the same time change the taste of the brew at the end.

Lastly (for now) I guess I should be using recipes with malted barley if I want to make 'nice' beers and avoid recipes which have too much 'other grains' in the recipe?

Okay, I've just had another thought. If I use a dark sugar to give a nice (hopefully) rich, dark flavour to my beer, do I have to increase the amount of sugar to take account of how much of the volume of the product is available to the yeast to convert into alcohol? If I want to make my brew sweeter, how can I do this (if indeed I can) as just adding sugar will in all probability just give the yeast more to feed on and I'll get a stronger beer but with the same taste (sort of)?

 

[Drunkula]

I've brewed a wheat beer with 50% pale malt and 50% plain flour. So I had to use the pale malt for the diastatic enzymes, of course. Mashing in was a nightmare. The flour creates this super thick wallpaper and I was going to just throw the whole lot way before even adding the pale malt. I went and did some stuff for an hour and the paste had sorted itself out and then it was fine to mash in the rest of the malt.

The efficiency I got from the flour was huge. Sparge and lauter wasn't true BIAB but I used a bag in a strainer and drained through that. Boil, coriander, peel, bit of hops, etc.

On the way to the fermenter I strained again. Even so there was tons of trub in the fermenter. Like about an 8th of the volume.

And it's bloody lovely. I've said it on a few threads but it's like ice-cream with a hint of banana. I wish I'd hit it up with a few more hops but that's just me.

Google brewing with flour and you'll find this pdf on brewery tests done in 1962 or something. It was quite reassuring.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I'd say it's probably worth investing in a couple of brewing books as most of your queries appear to be around the mechanics of the process and recipe-building.

Thoroughly recommended Greg Hughes' Home Brew Beer and Mastering Home Brew by Randy Mosher.

 

[Steelbacks]

I've brewed a wheat beer with 50% pale malt and 50% plain flour. So I had to use the pale malt for the diastatic enzymes, of course. Mashing in was a nightmare. The flour creates this super thick wallpaper and I was going to just throw the whole lot way before even adding the pale malt. I went and did some stuff for an hour and the paste had sorted itself out and then it was fine to mash in the rest of the malt.

The efficiency I got from the flour was huge. Sparge and lauter wasn't true BIAB but I used a bag in a strainer and drained through that. Boil, coriander, peel, bit of hops, etc.

On the way to the fermenter I strained again. Even so there was tons of trub in the fermenter. Like about an 8th of the volume.

And it's bloody lovely. I've said it on a few threads but it's like ice-cream with a hint of banana. I wish I'd hit it up with a few more hops but that's just me.

Google brewing with flour and you'll find this pdf on brewery tests done in 1962 or something. It was quite reassuring.

That sounds fantastic... all except for the bit about banana as I really don't like bananas! However, I may well look up a few recipes and see if any of them take my fancy. When you say that you got great efficiency from the flour, what do you mean exactly? Good conversion to alcohol?

 

[MyQul]

I think most of your questions have been answered by forumites but to address your question about barrels and wood..It's a relatively common practice to add wooden cubes, chips or a spiral to mimic the flavour of fermenting a beer in a wooden barrel ( and aging it in one). I've never tried it myself but you can buy oak chips quite easily from a number of online HB shops

 

[Drunkula]

Yes@great conversion. I was planning on a 5.1% beer and got something like 6.5%. The banana was on purpose because I used crossmyloof krystalweizen yeast and brewed at twenty odd degrees - not got my notes, but did brew higher to try and get more of the esterphenollywhatsits.

It's not worth doing to save money because it's only about 70p a gallon saving but I did one with wheat malt side by side and most people like the flour better so I might do it again because of that, not the saving.

When I say the flour had sorted itself out, I mean it had turned runny enough to get the malt in.

 

[Steelbacks]

Yes@great conversion. I was planning on a 5.1% beer and got something like 6.5%. The banana was on purpose because I used crossmyloof krystalweizen yeast and brewed at twenty odd degrees - not got my notes, but did brew higher to try and get more of the esterphenollywhatsits.

It's not worth doing to save money because it's only about 70p a gallon saving but I did one with wheat malt side by side and most people like the flour better so I might do it again because of that, not the saving.

When I say the flour had sorted itself out, I mean it had turned runny enough to get the malt in.

Ok, so you're sort of confirming my suspicions (and hence the original reason for my question) that flour appears to make it easier for the yeast to get at all the carbohydrates/sugars and turn them into alcohol. Now I'm just wondering if it's worthwhile making bread with the flour to 1- make it easier to drain off the wort and 2- give the wort a little bit more of a 'toasted/baked' flavour. I may have to make 2 identical brews using identical ingredients, but bake one into a loaf of bread and leave the other as raw flour and compare the results!

 

[Thumper]

Ok, so you're sort of confirming my suspicions (and hence the original reason for my question) that flour appears to make it easier for the yeast to get at all the carbohydrates/sugars and turn them into alcohol. Now I'm just wondering if it's worthwhile making bread with the flour to 1- make it easier to drain off the wort and 2- give the wort a little bit more of a 'toasted/baked' flavour. I may have to make 2 identical brews using identical ingredients, but bake one into a loaf of bread and leave the other as raw flour and compare the results!

If you're going to do that, why not just use bought bread?

I also suspect that any gain in efficiency is due to the flour being ground so fine. Essentially it's just finely ground unmalted wheat, and people use "crushed" unmalted wheat as an adjunct.