A amylase and glucoamylase for non fermented sugars

[Tōtōchtin]

I was curious especially with rum washes if anyone has tried using A amylase and glucoamylase for non fermented sugars. I had read a study giving an 8% increase in ethenol. I was wondering if it effected flavors at all.
Tōtō

[Saltbush Bill]

Ive read similar study's, the ones I read mostly concluded that the extra cost of enzymes wasnt worth the gain unless it was for massive scale fuel production.
The increase in ethanol from memory in the studys I read wasnt anything like 8%.
If I can find a link when I have time I'll post it up. The link might even already be here someplace.
Edit
Found this one I had stuck away that claims a %5 increase.
Workin on that figure for our purposes does that mean a 5% increase in hearts cut ?......my thought is probably not.
If for arguments sake we got to keep half of that after cuts ......we would be getting an extra 2.5L of drinkable Rum for every 100L distilled, would that be worth the extra effort and cost?

[Chauncey]

Just a thought, but I would say the percentage increase would reflect the same cut ratios. I.e. if the foreshots were 5 percent of the entire yield before enzymes, 5 percent of the amount of product gained from using enzymes would be foreshots. 5 percent of the 5 percent.

I'm drunk, so that may be nonsense

[bilgriss]

Since for the most part, recipes should already target a gravity and fermentability which is a good target for yeast viability and outcomes, it makes sense that adding another boost of ethanol to the final product might not result in a 'better' outcome. That is, you might need to adjust the initial recipe in other ways to get back to the same target. But that's a guess, really. It might also just make a little more alcohol. Still, if you reduced the amount of sugar to balance the output, the difference might get close to the cost of the enzymes and make the experiment cost-neutral.

[urbomb]

A 5% increase on a 10% ABV wash, assuming that the entire 10% is collectable, and a wash volume of 100 liters results in .5 liters additional EtOH. 100l x .1 = 10L 10L x .05 = .5L additional EtOH.

[Saltbush Bill]

I'm drunk, so that may be nonsense

Your opinions are always worth consideration Chauncey.....not ever read many that were not to the point and correct or close to it.
I've had more than one drink myself, you got me trying to work out now if that means we are dealing with 5% more fores, 5% more Heads, 5% more left in tails..it all adds up, or doesn't, depending on how you look at it.

A 5% increase on a 10% ABV wash,

I have to wonder what commercial Rum distilleries are pushing toward 10 %....maybe some are , post a link if there is .

[Tōtōchtin]

This is one of the studies that got me thinking...
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ng_Enzymes

[shadylane]

I've used Glucoamylase to make malt extract more fermentable and get a lower final gravity.
But malt is more expensive than molasses.

[Chauncey]

I'm drunk, so that may be nonsense

Your opinions are always worth consideration Chauncey.....not ever read many that were not to the point and correct or close to it.
I've had more than one drink myself, you got me trying to work out now if that means we are dealing with 5% more fores, 5% more Heads, 5% more left in tails..it all adds up, or doesn't, depending on how you look at it.

A 5% increase on a 10% ABV wash,

I have to wonder what commercial Rum distilleries are pushing toward 10 %....maybe some are , post a link if there is .

Thanks man.

I reckon the most boost one would receive using this method would be the difference between.990SG and where most molly washes finish.

for a 5 percent abv boost that would have to be like 1.035sg or something which seems like a really high SG to finish at. Like that's a lot of non fermentables. Most washes that don't finish dry are more like 1.010 iirc. So that's like a 1% boost. Not worth it.

[Saltbush Bill]

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2010086840A2/en
One of the links that I meant to post above.

[NZChris]

If it does work, it will dilute the molasses flavors the same as adding the equivalent amount of white sugar would. White sugar might cost less than the enzymes, so do your homework before you spend your money.

[Yummyrum]

I reckon the most boost one would receive using this method would be the difference between.990SG and where most molly washes finish.

for a 5 percent abv boost that would have to be like 1.035sg or something which seems like a really high SG to finish at. Like that's a lot of non fermentables. Most washes that don't finish dry are more like 1.010 iirc. So that's like a 1% boost. Not worth it.

Yeah I think it’s hard to figure percentage gain based on gravity readings .

There is no doubt that Molasses contains a whole lot of unfermentable stuff , but AFAIK most of it is neither unfermentable sugars nor starches .

A typical All Molasses wash will finish around 1.030 if it has no Dunder added .
Add Dunder and it will finish circa 1.060

I agree Chauncey , addition of starch converting enzymes is not worth it …… theres SFA starch to convert in a Molasses Rum wash . There’s a lot of other stuff , but it ain’t gonna magically become fermentable sugar by adding Enzymes .

[still_stirrin]

I’m far from a rum expert, but from the rums I’ve made using heavy molasses (including “deer-lick” and blackstrap molly), the “non-fermentables” were not readily convertible sugars. So, the terminal gravity did finish high (as Yummy noted). Adding amylase enzymes most likely won’t help either, only waste the enzymes you could use to convert grain starches in a cereal mash.

Enzymes are great tools to help us with starch conversion when brewing. But, we must first understand the chemical reactions that occur and what the “potential” for fermentation is in the mash/must/wash and how to exploit it with enzymes. Otherwise, it’s just “chaff in the wind”.

Questions are a great way to glean info, but for intensive investigations you’ll have to resort to the library and educational foundations. In other words, “read till your eyes bleed”. (you knew that was coming, right?)
ss