In the realm of beer crafting, the fundamental quartet of ingredients—water, malt, hops, and yeast—forms the bedrock. Brewers, in their quest for diverse profiles, have ingeniously manipulated malt to extract sugars. However, relying solely on these traditional components can lead to challenges, such as increased body and reduced attenuation in the final brew. To navigate these issues, many contemporary brewers, stepping away from rigid tradition, are incorporating Common Sugar Serving, specifically table sugar, into their recipes. This substitution of malt with sugar is often cited for its potential to elevate alcohol content while maintaining a minimal impact on the beer’s aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel.
Table sugar, scientifically known as sucrose, is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose. Its near 100% fermentability by standard brewer’s yeasts makes it an attractive adjunct. Brewers leverage this characteristic to produce beers with higher alcohol strength that retain a desirable dryness—a critical attribute for styles like the Double IPA. Yet, the brewing community is not without its debates. Some argue that table sugar introduces undesirable cider-like notes, contradicting claims of its neutrality. Conversely, proponents of all-malt brewing contend that comparable levels of dryness are achievable through meticulous process control, even without sugar additions.
As an avid beer enthusiast with a penchant for most styles, Double IPAs hold a special place. However, my preference leans towards those that mirror standard IPAs in their crispness and attenuation. Recently, while formulating a Double IPA recipe, the question of table sugar’s actual influence on the finished beer surfaced. This curiosity led to the design of an experimental brew, an xBmt, to empirically assess the impact of common sugar serving in a Double IPA.
| EXPERIMENT GOAL |
This experiment aims to discern the sensory differences between a Double IPA brewed entirely with malt and one where 5% of the malt bill is replaced by common sugar serving, specifically table sugar, added during the boil.
| METHODOLOGY |
For this comparative brewing trial, I selected a Double IPA recipe which is essentially a more robust iteration of my everyday IPA. The core modification was in one batch, where 5% of the grain was substituted with table sugar, a common sugar serving in brewing, while the other remained an all-malt control.
Brewing Process: Fred’s Method
Recipe Specifications
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Batch Size | 5.5 gal |
| Boil Duration | 60 min |
| IBU | 83 |
| SRM | 10.9 SRM |
| Est. Original Gravity (OG) | 1.083 |
| Est. Final Gravity (FG) | 1.018 |
| Alcohol By Volume (ABV) | 8.53 % |
| Actual Measurements | OG: 1.083 / FG: 1.018 / ABV: 8.53% |
Grain Bill & Common Sugar Serving
| Ingredient | Amount | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Vienna Malt | 8.501 lbs | 55.74 |
| Rye Malt | 3 lbs | 19.67 |
| Munich Malt | 2 lbs | 13.11 |
| Caramel Malt 40L | 1.001 lbs | 6.56 |
| Table Sugar (Sucrose) | 11.99 oz | 4.91 |
Hop Schedule
| Hop Variety | Amount | Time | Use | Form | Alpha % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTZ | 28 g | 60 min | Boil | Pellet | 14.1 |
| Mackinac | 28 g | 15 min | Boil | Pellet | 11.4 |
| Centennial | 28 g | 10 min | Boil | Pellet | 9.8 |
| Amarillo | 56 g | 5 min | Boil | Pellet | 7.2 |
| Centennial | 56 g | 5 min | Boil | Pellet | 9.8 |
| Centennial | 56 g | 5 days | Dry Hop | Pellet | 9.8 |
| Mackinac | 56 g | 5 days | Dry Hop | Pellet | 11.4 |
Yeast Strain
| Yeast Name | Lab | Attenuation | Temperature Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Darkness (A10) | Imperial Yeast | 75% | 68°F – 72°F |
Brewing Notes
| Detail |
|---|
| Water Profile: Ca 125 | Mg 20 | Na 8 | SO4 310 | Cl 56 |
| Note: For the all-malt batch, an additional 1.5 lbs/0.68 kg of Vienna malt was used to replace sugar. |
Recipe Download
| Resource |
|---|
| Download BeerXML Recipe File |
The brewing process commenced with water preparation for both batches. Once the water was heating, grains were measured and milled, setting the stage for the mash.
Milling grains for brewing experiment
Upon reaching strike temperature, grains were incorporated into each batch, ensuring both mashes stabilized at the target temperature. This step is crucial for consistent sugar extraction from the malt.
Mash temperatures comparison between all-malt and sugar batches
While the mashes rested, hop additions for the boil were prepared, ensuring precise timing and measurements for bitterness, flavor, and aroma contributions.
Hop additions prepared for the Double IPA experiment
Following a 60-minute mash, grains were removed, and the worts were boiled for 60 minutes. In the sugar batch, table sugar, representing the common sugar serving, was added with 15 minutes remaining in the boil. Worts were then rapidly chilled using a JaDeD Brewing Hydra IC before transferring equal volumes to sanitized fermenters.
Wort chilling process for both Double IPA batches
Hydrometer readings confirmed both worts hit the target original gravity, validating the recipe calculations and consistency across batches.
Original Gravity reading of 1.083 for both batches
Fermenters were placed in a temperature-controlled chamber to cool to the fermentation temperature of 68°F/20°C. Subsequently, a pouch of Imperial Yeast A10 Darkness was pitched into each.
Yeast pitching into fermenters for the Double IPA experiment
On day 5 of fermentation, identical dry hop additions were made to both batches. After a week, with no visible signs of fermentation activity, final gravity readings were taken, showing a negligible difference between the two beers.
Final Gravity readings comparison: all-malt vs. sugar batch
Beers were then transferred to CO2-purged kegs, force carbonated, and cold-conditioned for a week before sensory evaluation.
Serving glasses prepared for the triangle test
| EXPERIMENTAL OUTCOMES |
Gratitude is extended to the organizers of the 2024 CHAOS Homebrew Club BrewBQ for hosting the sensory evaluation. A diverse panel of 36 participants, with varying levels of beer tasting experience, engaged in a triangle test. Each taster received three coded samples—two of the all-malt beer and one of the common sugar serving beer—and were tasked with identifying the unique sample. Statistically, with 36 participants, approximately 12 correct identifications would be expected by random chance alone (33.3%). In this experiment, 18 tasters successfully identified the unique sample (p>0.05), indicating no statistically significant difference between the Double IPA brewed with and without common sugar serving.
Author’s Sensory Notes: In my own series of semi-blind triangle tests (5 trials), I correctly identified the outlier 3 times, admittedly with a degree of guesswork. Both beers presented as dry, with a pronounced hop character harmonizing with the malt profile typical of Midwest-style IPAs.
| DISCUSSION & BREWER’S INSIGHTS |
Brewing traditions vary widely. While some brewers adhere strictly to practices like the Reinheitsgebot, others are more experimental, incorporating unconventional ingredients to achieve specific brewing goals. Common sugar serving, particularly table sugar added during the boil, is often employed to increase beer strength with minimal perceived impact on flavor. The results of this exBeeriment support this view, as participants could not reliably differentiate between a Double IPA made with all malt and one incorporating table sugar.
One potential interpretation of these findings is that the 5% sugar addition was simply too subtle to elicit a noticeable difference. However, previous research, such as an earlier xBmt on Belgian Tripel with a 10% sugar addition, also found no discernible difference from an all-malt version. It’s plausible that the robust nature of Double IPAs, with their high ABV and intense hopping, may mask any nuances contributed by the common sugar serving. This is noteworthy considering sugar is frequently used in high-gravity styles to enhance alcohol content without adding excessive body.
These results were initially surprising. The assumption that sugar contributes strength and dryness without altering flavor or mouthfeel seemed almost axiomatic. My initial inclination was to dismiss sugar as a necessary adjunct, especially in hop-forward styles like Double IPA, given its seemingly negligible sensory impact. However, the economic aspect is undeniable. Table sugar is significantly more cost-effective than malt. Since this experiment suggests no negative sensory impact from using common sugar serving in Double IPA, substituting a portion of malt with sugar presents a straightforward method for cost reduction without sacrificing beer quality.
Your thoughts on these findings are welcome in the comments below!
Support Brülosophy – Brew in Style!
Brülosophy Merchandise on Amazon
Explore a variety of designs, colors, and sizes on Amazon!
Stay Connected with Brülosophy:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
If you value this content and wish to support Brülosophy.com, visit our Support page to learn how you can easily contribute. Your support is greatly appreciated!
Share This Article:
- Share on Facebook
- Share on X
