# Thoughts On The Use Of Feed-lot Grade Grains In Brewing



## Infinitee (9/11/09)

Hey y'all funky, fermentarians.

I know that this topic may well earn me the odd <_< ...

But I don't see why we shouldn't be using cheaper grains when the amount of boiling they go through
Should destroy 99.9-100% of all grain-borne bacteria and spores.

Feed-lot grade grain is ridiculously cheap and can be bought in varying amounts (not just the bulkiest of bulk buys)
(Or even looted from your work, if -oh I dunno, say- you worked in the agricultural dept. of a school)  

The grains should still malt fine (provided they aren't too old), you can buy them uncracked or cracked ...
Did I mention they are cheap?

You all might think I'm a scrooge mcduck ...
And you'd be right - but no harm in that, it's a reason that many of us homebrew in the first place.

So any positive thoughts, advice, experience etc ...

Thanks for the space to query you all.
:icon_cheers:


----------



## brettprevans (9/11/09)

correct me if im wrong (and I dont think I am). feed grain hasnt been malted. hence unless your going to malt it yourself, its unsuitable.

thats why we dont use it

edit: the maltsters job is to malt grain so we get the variations of grain and hence so many grain types (base, crystal, specialty etc). this also modifies the grain so its easier to brew with. I doubt they go to the expense of doing this, just to feed it to animals.

also there are grades of grain. malting companies only take specific grades of grain.


----------



## MarkBastard (9/11/09)

Do you even know what malting is? (Aimed at Infinitee)


----------



## j1gsaw (9/11/09)

A pain in the arse i always thought! Malting that is..


----------



## brettprevans (9/11/09)

Kleiny jump in and add anything ive missed.

edit: i forgot to add a <_< 

i suppose if you dont know what malting is, then its a logical question.


----------



## Kleiny (9/11/09)

Feed grade barley is feed grade because it is generally out of good brewing parameters e.g too high or too low in protein, frost damaged, poor grain size or uneven in its grains with too many wild oat seeds or dirt etc, not viable or in dormancy.

This is why it is cheap and not bought by the maltings or large breweries. (good cow/sheep food but not good for malting)

Yes you can get good quality feedgrade barley that is just out side what a maltster was looking for but how would you know unless you get the grain sampled and lab tested before you went to the trouble of malting it.

Infinitee if you want to try go ahead nobody will stop you but please post your results.

Good luck
Kleiny


----------



## bigfridge (9/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> Hey y'all funky, fermentarians.
> 
> I know that this topic may well earn me the odd <_< ...
> 
> ...



Hi Infinitee,

These grains are fine to use provided that you are wanting to make a 'barnyard bitter' or 'feed-lot lager'  

But you need to realise that every grain farmer hopes to get their grain graded as 'malting quality' and it only ends up in the feed stores when it has been rejected as being unsuitable for malting. This is usually due to the Nitrogen levels being too high. It has nothing to do with bacteria, spores or age.

Malt has to be a lot more expensive than grain due to the high energy, water and waste disposal costs required to malt grain. Then there is the 6-12 % loss in grain weight during malting arising from the rootlets and respiration.

There is a lot of information on malting in the brewing textbooks and on the net and you will be able to malt feed grade barley ok, but you will probably get uneven/low germination, poor modification and produce malt that gives a hazy, poorly flavoured beer. You will also find that you can't produce enough malt to keep up with your brewing needs due to the time and effort needed.


HTH,
David


----------



## Thirsty Boy (9/11/09)

If you had wheat, barley, rye, corn etc - you _could_ use them as unmalted adjuncts to dilute the cost of your malt. But as the guys have mentioned, it would be a crapshoot on the quality of the grains and what they would be adding to your brew. If you could get an analysis sheet for the grain - it might help to work out whether they would be suitable or not. There is a lot more leeway on the quality of unmalted adjunct grain than there is on grain destined for malting.

I don't feel your return would be big enough to be worth the bother or the potential quality impact on your beer... but you could I suppose save yourself 25-30% on your malt bill if you chose to become an adjunct brewer.


----------



## fcmcg (9/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> .
> 
> But I don't see why we shouldn't be using cheaper grains when the amount of boiling they go through
> Should destroy 99.9-100% of all grain-borne bacteria and spores.
> ...


I have just finished reading the section in Palmers " How to Brew" about grain ( and whilst i think i'll need to re-read it at least 3 times to fully understand it ) ,it does explain why pretty much only "two row " and "six row" malted barley is used( after it has been malted )..As others have pointed out...feed gradee is really no good for brewing , hence it being feed grade ! Would have been good if we could use it...nice thought...but no...
my 2c
Cheers


----------



## glaab (9/11/09)

how about feed grade raw wheat?, couldn't you use that in a recipe requiring raw wheat?


----------



## manticle (9/11/09)

I'm all for people experimenting if there's a purpose but the money saving is already significant enough for me to continue brewing my own. I love the processes of making grain based beer (and my processes are very long winded) but there's no way I could even consider going to the effort of malting my own grain and unmalted adjuncts really aren't expensive enough to warrant me worrying about that either.

Cattle feed and bird poop ale eh? 

Interesting take on things.


----------



## Effect (9/11/09)

glaab said:


> how about feed grade raw wheat?, couldn't you use that in a recipe requiring raw wheat?



that is exactly what I was thinking...


----------



## Darren (9/11/09)

manticle said:


> Cattle feed and bird poop ale eh?




Typical negative input from Mr. Manticle, and no your point of view was not an intersting take on things.

Tonnes and tonnes of malting grade barley goes to "animal feed". In actuality, unless a farmer is on the "in" he wont sell his grain to maltsters no matter how "perfect for malting" his/her grain is.

I would encourage everyone to look at the science of malting. Chances are that exceptional beer can be made from "reject" grain. 

However, it is probably better to get the grain from the farm if possible.

cheers

Darren


----------



## manticle (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> Typical negative input from Mr. Manticle, and no your point of view was not an intersting take on things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Typical? Read a bit champ. I'm not particularly negative on this forum. It's a little bit pot/kettle coming from you anyway.

Firstly- the OP mentioned in a previous post that he had experiemented with inoculating his beer with bird faeces. 

Secondly, in recent discussions with yourself, despite vehemently disagreeing with the way you post, I've made an effort to be polite and actually draw out your reasoning behind things (something you have persistently ignored). I'd rather discuss and debate without this kind of crap if it's all the same with you. I've said before I think you've probably got a hell of a lot of knowledge about brewing but you rarely choose to share it, preferring to make disparaging posts about anyone who no-chills, brews in a bag or judges a competition.


----------



## Darren (9/11/09)

manticle said:


> Typical? Read a bit champ. I'm not particularly negative on this forum. It's a little bit pot/kettle coming from you anyway.
> 
> Firstly- the OP mentioned in a previous post that he had experiemented with inoculating his beer with bird faeces.
> 
> Secondly, in recent discussions with yourself, despite vehemently disagreeing with the way you post, I've made an effort to be polite and actually draw out your reasoning behind things (something you have persistently ignored). I'd rather discuss and debate without this kind of crap if it's all the same with you. I've said before I think you've probably got a hell of a lot of knowledge about brewing but you rarely choose to share it, preferring to make disparaging posts about anyone who no-chills, brews in a bag or judges a competition.




All fair points and I acknowledge an unfairness in my post, sorry. 

However, the posting by you had the "bird poo" connotations whereas ALL malted barley will have a significant amount of this type of contamination.

My original post was to encourage debate and learning about the malting process (which really is not that hard unless you want to make a million tonnes of the stuff).

cheers

darren


----------



## manticle (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> All fair points and I acknowledge an unfairness in my post, sorry.
> 
> However, the posting by you had the "bird poo" connotations whereas ALL malted barley will have a significant amount of this type of contamination.
> 
> ...



My bird poo comment was made lightheartedly and referred entirely to the OP's post in another thread: http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum//ind...20&start=20. 

If I lived on a large property or had more time, I'd love to learn the process of malting. These things interest me greatly. I just meant that it would be impracticable for me at this point in time and I had no intention of discouraging anyone else from doing it.

And apology accepted and appreciated.


----------



## Muggus (9/11/09)

Interesting thread.

I was just wondering, what if you were to kiln/bake/roast these poorer quality grains and make you own roasted barley?
Considering the small amounts of roasted barley usually used in a beer, and the fact that starch conversion really isn't all that important for such a thing, would grain of lesser quality be a viable option for such a thing?


----------



## MHB (9/11/09)

Im of the I dont get it school of thought, I work long hours, the too few opportunities I get to brew I want to make the best beer I can and screw everything else.
I will use the best Malt Hops Water and Yeast I can get my hands on, the 5-6 hours committed to every brew are worth more to me than chancing less than the best results to save a piddling amount of money on ingredients.
The difference between using the lowest grade crap you can get and the very best is going to be at worst $10-15 per brew, $3/hour if that, for Christ sake get a grip on reality make GOOD BEER, the price looks after its self.
MHB


----------



## AndrewQLD (9/11/09)

MHB said:


> I'm of the "I don't get it" school of thought, I work long hours, the too few opportunities I get to brew I want to make the best beer I can and screw everything else.
> I will use the best Malt Hops Water and Yeast I can get my hands on, the 5-6 hours committed to every brew are worth more to me than chancing less than the best results to save a piddling amount of money on ingredients.
> The difference between using the lowest grade crap you can get and the very best is going to be at worst $10-15 per brew, $3/hour if that, for Christ sake get a grip on reality make GOOD BEER, the price looks after its self.
> MHB



Nicely put MHB, although it's nice to think you can take the cost saving to the Nth degree, is it really worth it? Not to me. Good consistent ingredients along with good brewing practices means good beer. 
But I do disagree with your 5-6 hour brew day, cut that down to 3-4 hours and I'm with you.

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## glaab (9/11/09)

the "reality" is that $10-$15 is a lot of money to some, like students/ pensioners or whatever, it seems like a reasonable question to post to me, but maybe I got no grip on reality


----------



## AndrewQLD (9/11/09)

glaab said:


> the "reality" is that $10-$15 is a lot of money to some, like students/ pensioners or whatever, it seems like a reasonable question to post to me, but maybe I got no grip on reality



I suppose that depends on whether you brew to create something that rivals what you can buy commercially or whether you brew just to get pissed.
And while $10-$15 dollars is a lot to some, including me, it's a lot more if you just have to tip it down the drain.
But experimentation is great, have fun I say, try it and judge for yourself.

Andrew


----------



## Screwtop (9/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> I don't see why we shouldn't be using cheaper grains when the amount of boiling they go through
> Should destroy 99.9-100% of all grain-borne bacteria and spores.
> 
> Feed-lot grade grain is ridiculously cheap and can be bought in varying amounts (not just the bulkiest of bulk buys)
> ...



Steady Screwy..........Steady.......Steady.

Deep Breath......................think positive thoughts...................relax....................bring down the blood pressure..............Ahhhhh......Better


I've had a positive thought...............buy some out of date malt extract or kit cans, they would be cheap too, make better beer and you wouldn't have to boil it.

:blink:


----------



## AndrewQLD (9/11/09)

Screwtop said:


> Steady Screwy..........Steady.......Steady.
> 
> Deep Breath......................think positive thoughts...................relax....................bring down the blood pressure..............Ahhhhh......Better
> 
> ...



I liked your reply to Screwy.
Hope you are keeping well mate.

Andrew


----------



## Screwtop (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> All fair points and I acknowledge an unfairness in my post, sorry.
> 
> cheers
> 
> darren




Dazza..................get a fkucing grip man :lol:

Screwy


----------



## glaab (9/11/09)

right or wrong, I don't see the need to be insulting and/ or condescending


----------



## ausdb (9/11/09)

Thirsty Boy said:


> If you had wheat, barley, rye, corn etc - you _could_ use them as unmalted adjuncts to dilute the cost of your malt. But as the guys have mentioned, it would be a crapshoot on the quality of the grains and what they would be adding to your brew. If you could get an analysis sheet for the grain - it might help to work out whether they would be suitable or not. There is a lot more leeway on the quality of unmalted adjunct grain than there is on grain destined for malting.
> 
> I don't feel your return would be big enough to be worth the bother or the potential quality impact on your beer... but you could I suppose save yourself 25-30% on your malt bill if you chose to become an adjunct brewer.


My Father in Law has a wheat / sheep farm in the Mid West of WA and also grows a bit of barley (Gairdner a malting grade) from time to time but I could never be ar$ed going to the trouble of malting my own, as the others have said way too much time and effort involved with no guarantee of success even if the raw material is free to me.

On the other hand when I make a Wit beer, I have been known to grab a few kg of raw wheat out of the silo when I'm up visiting and have found it makes a very nice "Dandaragan White". This also gets him a lot of bragging points when it is served at a party with his mates when he tells them where part of the grain bill came from :icon_cheers:


----------



## schooey (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> Tonnes and tonnes of malting grade barley goes to "animal feed". In actuality, unless a farmer is on the "in" he wont sell his grain to maltsters no matter how "perfect for malting" his/her grain is.



I'm kind of curious about this statement... I grew up on the dirt as a kid, and the old man used to grow a thousand acres of Barley as winter rotational if he thought the season was up for it. On the off year when the rain came at the right time, and the heat and humidity were in the right places we would get malting grade Barley. The difference was about 2.5-3 times the price of feed Barley. As I remember it, the old man never had an 'in' it was just tested at the local AWB silo and if it went malting, you got the quoted price on the day...

Maybe it was different down there in the south, or recent times have changed things, because I speak of 20 years ago. But I have no memory of anyone being pissed off that they couldn't sell they're Malting quality Barley, only being pissed off that it didn't make malting quality


----------



## Darren (9/11/09)

Hey,

Lets put things into perspective. Anyone can go buy the "freshest" malt, hops, extract or can of the finest from a HB shop. 

Do homebrewers think that they are "offered" the highest quality malt by buying through a shop-front?

Do HB shop owners think that they have the buying power to source the finest of the malts?

Chances are that HB shops are selling out of date, sub-standard malts at premium prices (albeit accidently).

Always ensure that a HB shop supplies a certificate of analysis (COA) with malts bought from a HB shop (particularly specialty malts). 

cheers

Darren


----------



## bum (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> Chances are that HB shops are selling out of date, sub-standard malts at premium prices (albeit accidently).



Entirely likely from time to time. Of course, chances are that these malts are still going to be better for brewing than un-malted feed.

[EDIT: had to change a word or two - who knew drinking 6.5% IPAs in 34 degree weather when you are sick was a bad idea?]


----------



## AndrewQLD (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> Hey,
> 
> Lets put things into perspective. Anyone can go buy the "freshest" malt, hops, extract or can of the finest from a HB shop.
> 
> ...



As cynical as he sounds Darren is right  .

Brewers malt is supplied from the malsters with a COA for a reason, so the brewer knows EXACTLY what they are brewing with so they can make adjustments on brew day for repeatability ect.

However I don't agree with your comments regarding brew shops selling sub standard or out of date grain, that would depend on turnover, not good to generalise.

Andrew


----------



## raven19 (9/11/09)

My brother in law's father produces malting grade barley on their farm up north. I have every intention at some stage to brew some beers using 20 - 40% of this unmalted barley in a longer mash. I shall introduce a protein rest at around 50 degrees also.

If it was not malting grade I would not be bothering with it personally...

Use it as an adjunct and give it a whirl I say!


----------



## manticle (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> Hey,
> 
> 
> Chances are that HB shops are selling out of date, sub-standard malts at premium prices (albeit accidently).
> ...




It's true that any shop can sell anything of dubious quality. I've no doubt some do and that some of them are brewing supply shops. Just because it comes from a shop doesn't mean it's great.

However, my experience of specialist and hobby shops is that generally they are aware that they are dealing with people who are not only passionate about their craft but knowledgeable about it too. Their business often relies on providing the quality that is demanded. I would expect many good brewers would notice if their malt was stale due to the product that would result and my experience of good retailers suggests most of them are avid homebrewers like most of us. Their market is in providing nerds with stuff that meets their nerdy criteria (we are essentially beer nerds).

Note I'm talking about specialist shops and the advice on getting a COA is probably sound. Personally I've never heard of it. I'm assuming it's like an MSDS for malt and other types of grain and gives the date and chemical analysis of the product?


----------



## Darren (9/11/09)

Raven,

Malt a bit and let us know how it goes.

Happy to give some a go myself for a bit of fun.

cheers

Darren


----------



## Darren (9/11/09)

Raven,

Malt a bit and let us know how it goes.

Happy to give some a go myself for a bit of fun.

cheers

Darren


----------



## Darren (9/11/09)

manticle said:


> It's true that any shop can sell anything of dubious quality. I've no doubt some do and that some of them are brewing supply shops. Just because it comes from a shop doesn't mean it's great.
> 
> 
> Note I'm talking about specialist shops and the advice on getting a COA is probably sound. Personally I've never heard of it. I'm assuming it's like an MSDS for malt and other types of grain and gives the date and chemical analysis of the product?




Manticle,

Tells you year of harvest which is of the most important concern for this thread.

cheers

Darren


----------



## brettprevans (9/11/09)

Who would have thought this thread would end positively. A good experiment? Actually it probably much like wine makers in years if excess and flogging off great wine as clean skins. It's all about being in the know and geting good quality cheaply. For those if us in the smoke we probably have to rely on lhbs proving us with good quality malt for our $ as we want to make great beer. One assumes anyone AGing wants to make great beer not ok beer. Just an assumtionand can't be arses going into detail whilst having to type it out on an iPhone.


----------



## manticle (9/11/09)

Darren said:


> Manticle,
> 
> Tells you year of harvest which is of the most important concern for this thread.
> 
> ...



Cool. I'll check for one next time I order. Any suggestions on how old is too old?


----------



## Mantis (9/11/09)

manticle said:


> Cool. I'll check for one next time I order. Any suggestions on how old is too old?




Check if the bag is hand stiched with one of those big bag needles

Sorry, tooo many pints and my brain is hurting from reading this thread h34r:


----------



## bigfridge (9/11/09)

manticle said:


> Cool. I'll check for one next time I order. Any suggestions on how old is too old?



I do - but I won't be bothering to contribute to this thread any further.

We had the OP ask a sensible question based on wrong or incomplete information. This information was corrected and added to by a number of posters (none of whom got a word of thanks) and then the flame wars and slanging match started followed by Daren making some outrageous claims about farmers 'purposely' avoiding getting 2x the price possible for their barley. BTW feed barley is around $140/tonne and malting grade $250/t.

Tony questions Darrens assertions based on his experience growing up on a Barley farm, which Darren choses to ignore - following up with some rant about how Brewshops get poor quality malt so you may as well malt your own. I don't think that you have been in many malt distributor warehouses Daren, but I have never seen a dividing wall that has 'brewery quality' malt on one side and 'left over home brew shit malt' on the other. It is all good quality stuff - w ehave access to the finest ingredients in the world.

Guess that it is just another typical night on AHB, so goodbye from me.


----------



## bum (9/11/09)

At least Darren didn't start his post with "I have relevant information that would answer an earnest question from a serious poster (and possibly help numerous others) but elect to withhold it because I am better than this thread."


----------



## MHB (10/11/09)

Andrew
Maybe I should have said 5-6 Hours committed to a brew, I was including all the prep, cleaning, fermentation and packaging, its been a very long week.

Just as a quick exercise I costed making 25 L of Standard Beer (1.050, 25 IBU, 60 minute boil with Topaz and a reasonable yeast S-33) using my in store retail prices comes to $20-, if you could substitute half the malt with FREE adjunct you might save $8.40, I chose Topaz because its the cheapest way to buy Alpha (shame it tastes pretty good to).
So that $10-15 was being generous, on say 22.5L or 45ish glasses of beer $8.40/45 is about 18 cents a glass - Hum malt made to Heineken specs or crap for 18 cents a glass the difference.
I know what I would choose.
Bear in mind that I have assumed you get the same yield from crap adjunct as you do from first class malt; energy and water arent included either so the relative saving on the brew would be even smaller.

Dont think for 1 minute that I dont encourage people to experiment I do, this thread was about substituting the cheapest possible ingredient for quality malt, thats what I dont get!



> (Darren @ Nov 9 2009, 09:09 PM)
> Hey,
> 
> Lets put things into perspective. Anyone can go buy the "freshest" malt, hops, extract or can of the finest from a HB shop.
> ...


Darren, you raise some really important points I would like to address, so:-
Yes I hope so, at least more so than ever before, although its been a matter of concern in the past. There are however a growing pool of retailers who really care about/for their malt and hops sadly there are still plenty who need to raise their standards. My rule is - if I wont use it I wont sell it and I know Im not the only retailer who thinks that way. There is a growing band of retailers who are brewers first and I think its lifting the standards across the board.
If youre suggesting that I should print one out every time someone wants 100g of crystal, that would be impractical and would add to the cost of doing business, further inflating the price of the malt. Most people dont care but for those that do, yes theyre available on request.
MHB


----------



## Infinitee (10/11/09)

Wow lads. RDWHAHB. :icon_cheers: 

Thanks all for your answers, a lot was rather helpful - sry I shan't answer them all tonight, it's been a late one.

I should have mentioned my lack of adversity towards the general process of malting.
I was under the impression that it was not too hard to do
And also that superior quality and or more customised mixers would be available to the home maltster.

Then again, I've only malted grains a few times to brew with, and a few more for malt-sprout cakes and the like.
Feed lot is to save money - I haven't personally seen dirt, wildoat etc contaminated feedlot grains as mentioned earlier (no doubt it exists).
And optimally, you'd want to home-malt with the most quality of grains
Which i daresay would be superior on a well composted home patch - than any commercially grown grains the industry can provide.

I appreciate all the input - thanks all, and maybe I should experiment first and Then ask questions :lol: 

One thing I do take exception (not overly though, mateys) to is barnyard bitters/feedlot lager - whatever the remark was.
Pigeon shit in a beer does NOT adversely affect the taste, it really is superior nutritionally,
It is free, sun-irradiated and par-boiled ...
And why can't we all just get it how we like it.
[So what if I'm a connoisseur of the backyard brew - a connoisseur, I remain]


----------



## Thirsty Boy (10/11/09)

As I originally posted - I don't personally think its worth the bother - but as a thought exercise its interesting.

Quality - is relative.

Sure, I absolutely agree that malted barley made from feedlot barley would almost certainly produce substandard malt. You might get lucky and get barley that was at malting grade or close to it and was rejected... but without the specifications you would never know.

But - as I said, the need for such high specifications is far less important for adjunct grains - and that includes things like your crystal and roasted malts. Quite often (but certainly not always) in the maltster's, it is nearly out of spec malt, or thins, or damaged lots that have already been accepted into the silos, that gets tagged for specialty malt production. So a compromise on the quality of the grain for those sorts of malts may well not be so important.

And also as people have suggested might be the case, there really isn't a hell of a difference between feed and malting grain when you are talking about wheat or other non-barley grains anyway.

So I think its not so impractical as people have been painting. You might not be able to malt enough barley to meet your base malt needs, you probably don't want to malt these sort of grains for that anyway... But if it was up your alley. I think that the feed grade grains could well be used both as unmalted adjunct and as malted specialty grain - without all of the ruinous impact on beer quality that has been implied. And if you think its worth it to trade your time/effort in order to save a few bucks - it might be worth a try. 

I sympathize a little with this point of view - mainly because I choose to brew with a malt that most brewers on this site would consider to be inferior. Malt that I was assured was unsuitable for homebrewing and that would never give me as good a beer as I could make from "higher quality" ingredients. I choose to take this route because the malt is for me - free; and I don't think that serendipity of this magnitude should be spurned. So I choose to use this malt and I have chosen to learn how to brew with it and make good beer with it - and I have. Or at least I am satisfied with the beer and it mostly holds its own when compared to other homebrew.

As long as the OP is aware of the pros and cons, and I think he probably is by now, if he were to choose to use this grain for 100% of his brewing needs, I say more power to him. He would be making beer at home and he would be making the beer he wants to make. I fail to see the bad side of that.


----------



## schooey (10/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> Pigeon shit in a beer does NOT adversely affect the taste, it really is superior nutritionally,




Hmm... wonder how many takers you'd get in a case swap...


----------



## fergi (10/11/09)

i cant believe the number of posts on this subject, really this was answered in the first couple of posts to be honest. havent you guys got some brews to make or something useful. 

fergi


----------



## bum (10/11/09)

Yeah, guys. Stop being interested in brewing and trying to learn more about it. Go to your brew-room and stagnate.


----------



## Brewer_010 (10/11/09)

Jeez, isn't it better using the best quality ingredients you can afford? Is there a reason cattle get that particular grain, as in it's rubbish and not fit for human consumption? 

Saving a few bucks is good but you'd want to make sure the grain is up to it. Malted grain for brewing is not *that * expensive!

And if your hobby is getting too expensive then it may be time to scale consumption back a little, make it go further h34r:


----------



## fergi (10/11/09)

Brewer_010 said:


> Jeez, isn't it better using the best quality ingredients you can afford? Is there a reason cattle get that particular grain, as in it's rubbish and not fit for human consumption?
> 
> Saving a few bucks is good but you'd want to make sure the grain is up to it. Malted grain for brewing is not *that * expensive!
> 
> And if your hobby is getting too expensive then it may be time to scale consumption back a little, make it go further h34r:




agree completely here as most common sensible people would, as one of the posts said , we are here to learn about improving our brewing and moving forward well if thats your idea of moving forward and learning then you are a bloody slow learner, next you will be wanting to debate the merits on using bakers yeast to save a few dollars, if its that important to save money at the expensive of a quality beer why dont you just go to coles and go home brand cans of draught goo for$7.50 i am sure that would be cheaper and a better product than debating the merrits of cow food for brewing, we actually grow barley up here and most farmers this year have not come up with the correct % of protein in their grain so it is downgraded , and its downgraded for a reason, its no good for top malting barley.
fergi


----------



## Thirsty Boy (11/11/09)

Brewer_010 said:


> Jeez, isn't it better using the best quality ingredients you can afford?



Depends entirely on your point of view - I don't think that it is at all. I can afford the absolute best of imported or locally grown malt, but I don't want to use it. And I make great beer. When I think that the quality of the malt I am using is the limiting factor in improving my beer, I'll probably change, but I reckon I have about 10 years of experience to get before I reach that point... so I use cheaper malt instead.

It's of a lesser degree - but fundamentally the same sort of thing that the OP is suggesting - learn to brew with the material you have at hand. If you aren't happy with the results, or you want to go further... then the options for better quality material are still there aren't they?


----------



## fergi (11/11/09)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Depends entirely on your point of view - I don't think that it is at all. I can afford the absolute best of imported or locally grown malt, but I don't want to use it. And I make great beer. When I think that the quality of the malt I am using is the limiting factor in improving my beer, I'll probably change, but I reckon I have about 10 years of experience to get before I reach that point... so I use cheaper malt instead.
> 
> It's of a lesser degree - but fundamentally the same sort of thing that the OP is suggesting - learn to brew with the material you have at hand. If you aren't happy with the results, or you want to go further... then the options for better quality material are still there aren't they?



i think what we are actually getting at here thirsty is the hassle of getting the grain and then going to all the trouble of making it into a malting barley and then still ending up with a product that is not there in quality, short cut would be as i said to go down to coles and get their home brand draught cans for $7.50 i understand what you are using and realise that you do make a good product in the end but getting feed lot grain and having to process it is just not worth the hassle .apart from making better cheaper beer isnt our aim also to make the process as fast and efficient as possible also. but as i said i do take note of a lot of the stuff that you post here so i bow to your greater technique and brewing knowledge.
fergi


----------



## MHB (11/11/09)

TB
As Im sure you know, only a fraction of the Barley crop qualifies as malting grade, even the Cheapest malt is still the cream of the crop.
MHB


----------



## brettprevans (11/11/09)

just to throw petrol on the flames.... where does cerial grade grain etc come in the rankings of quality. low or high? 

actually this is a pointless discussion unless your prepared to malt your own. no matter what grade it is, your still going to want it malted for you. PITA process esp for a novice. no way im going to screw around with trying to malt my own grain. my time is worth way more than what i'll save buying pre-malted grain. and I think thats the bottom line as far as the OP goes.


----------



## riverside (11/11/09)

_ID BE IN FOR A CASE SWAP ....... NOT ! :icon_drunk: _


----------



## Infinitee (11/11/09)

Many grains to use besides barley - no harm in diversification.

Malting is not an impossible task. I sprout grains everyday and it's only a short step further to halt the process and be left with a malt-potential grain.

Brewing should also not be purely about 'going forward' via refinement and distinction.

You could open up the possibilities by the odd bit of experimentation ...
And what about going back to the roots of beer drinking with just malt-grain, water and bread...
And what's wrong with wanting to produce it en-masse and in commercial quantities and in an old, energy-efficient style?

Your all talk, no malt.

What are you going to do when the all the HBS close down due to whatever apocalyptic scenario comes our way??

I'll be the guy with the cornfields, chickens and cider - laughing my ass off.

Open your minds, guys. Nothing wrong with someone else thinking something else.
A lot of people still have constructive stuff to add to these bush-brewing topics and most importantly an Interest ...
If that means anything here.


----------



## bum (11/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> A lot of people still have constructive stuff to add to these bush-brewing topics and most importantly an Interest ...
> If that means anything here.



This thread is 3 pages of people discussing your question.


----------



## King Brown (11/11/09)

I wont mention quality of the grain as it already has been many times, but if you were gonna brew with a large amount of feed grain a decoction mash may be a good idea? This type of mashing was originally came up with to handle less than ideal grain or so im led to believe? It would certainly be an interesting experiment. Of course another way to save lots of money on malt, providing you have the space is to just go the whole 9 yards and start growing your own, with a bit of practice you could probably end up winning out on both quality and price!


----------



## MHB (11/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> Hey y'all funky, fermentarians.
> 
> I know that this topic may well earn me the odd <_< ...
> 
> ...


Mate, frankly your last post is totally at odds with your OP.
This is a beer forum, not a doomsday survivalist venue.
Beer making ingredients are selected because they are the best for making BEER your OP was all about being a tight arse (or at least it read that way to me), nothing about bush or survivalist brewing.
There are other threads on Malting, growing Barley and Hops, you will if you familiarise yourself with the search function find a great range of information is available.
But the old You cant make a silk purse........ is as true today as ever, it takes quality ingredients to make quality product my sole interest is in improving my brewing I want to make better beer, not cheaper beer.
MHB
And a bonus <_< 
Mark


----------



## manticle (11/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> Many grains to use besides barley - no harm in diversification.
> 
> Malting is not an impossible task. I sprout grains everyday and it's only a short step further to halt the process and be left with a malt-potential grain.
> 
> ...



Variations of opinions are just that. Did you expect everyone to smack their heads and ask "why didn't I think of that"? It's an interesting idea but that doesn't mean everyone's going to be into it and people have simply (in the main) expressed why or why not.


----------



## porky (11/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> I'll be the guy with the cornfields, chickens and cider - laughing my ass off.



Speaking of ass.....corn cobs make great toilet paper....just ask my pa.
And a chicken now and then is fine when the daughter isn't available.

Cheers from Kentucky


----------



## Infinitee (11/11/09)

I appreciate the bulk of the answers provided here ...

But I just thought there'd be less shit-slinging on a differently-approached idea ...

And some more experience with malting of base grains to brew with.

You people call yourself brewers?!


----------



## Adamt (11/11/09)

Yes, brewers.... not maltsters.


----------



## manticle (11/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> And some more experience with malting of base grains to brew with.
> 
> You people call yourself brewers?!



That's like criticising a chef for not killing a cow.


----------



## Darren (11/11/09)

Great to see infinitee looking out of the "square"



Adamt said:


> Yes, brewers.... not maltsters.




I suggest that the majority are just fermentation assistants who are generally happy with the _status quo_ of she'il be right mate, I know all that stuff give me a can/bag of malt and some dried yeast and I will call myself a brewer.

There is of course a bigger picture here. As stated before many, many farmers have their barley rejected for malting purely because they do not know the buyer well enough, suggestive that there is alot of malting grade barley going to feed-lot.

To make things worse, a hell of alot of MALTED barley also goes to feed-lot due to over-production and also FRESHNESS.

Considering that all the imported malts in Australia have sailed at sea for at least three months, one needs to consider just how fresh the product is and also if the same but fresher product can be produced simply and more cheaply right there at home?

food for thought

cheers

Darren


----------



## Darren (11/11/09)

manticle said:


> That's like criticising a chef for not killing a cow.




No, thats like criticising a chef for not knowing what a cow is or which cut of meats come from where (unless of course they were vegetarian chefs)

cheers

Darren


----------



## manticle (11/11/09)

I beg to differ. Everyone knows that grain needs to be malted, which grains that are often malted/can be malted, what malting is, etc etc. They just may not have done it themselves.

Brewers brew, malsters malt. Sometimes, one may do the other.

Nothing wrong, in my book, with someone having a go at something different. Expect a variety of opinions when posting on the internet though.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (11/11/09)

Just a quick thought, How does crop date equate to malting date ? I have spec sheets that only mention crop date not malting date ? So it looks like you can keep barley for some years then malt it and it becomes the fresh maltings. Got me confused but I remember on a Cascade tour where they mentioned they could keep enough barley for three years production ? Not sure if it was malted or raw.
GB


----------



## jimi (11/11/09)

Darren said:


> Great to see infinitee looking out of the "square"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Farmers having their barley rejected because they don't know the buyer" - what a load of ...! The whole system could not be anymore 'faceless'. Heck most farmers I know don't even drop off their grain at the bridge the trucky does all that. AWB, VICGrain and the other independents I've worked for have orders to fill as quick as possible and who ever has grain at the specs required will be taken. Some orders don't even get filled, so they'd be losing money not taking grain that meets the specs.
Infinitee - you've asked for opinions on your idea and you've had them. I don't think there's been any slinging. No point asking a question if your only going to be happy the one response you've already preconcieved.


----------



## Brewman_ (11/11/09)

Please, correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe many farmers sell only a portion of their immediate crop - depending on price and demand, and store grain in large silo's > 1000 ton per silo in banks of many silo's. The Silo's provide time to buffer demand / prices and maximise sale price and other economic considerations. So even local grain may not be provided to market immediately.

Fear_n_Loath


----------



## Infinitee (12/11/09)

I am not at all displeased with the variety of response here.

Some folk gave information that changed my mind immediately about the quality of grain required for a Decent malt.

But others just confirmed their ignorance about the base of the subject - I just find it unfortunate that such few posts devolve the subject of choice....

The fact that many folk have asserted there is a high-standard of grain to be accepted for malting makes me want to grow my own quality grains for brewing purposes (already got rye and oats growing strong) ...
And I'm not entirely convinced that it's only the best of the most quality of grains that get made into the finest of malts and malt-extracts that people pay such top dollar for.

That is what I'm wondering about mostly: Value for dollar.

Rather than purchasing the 'recommended' and pronouncing it the Holy Shiznits From Colossal Cloud Nine.
As some seem so prone and ready to do.

I want to produce the finest and freshest of beverages possible.
And I also want to be able to do it from the home/farm, without relying on corporate suppliers.

Is that ok?


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/11/09)

Fair comments, but be prepared to study a lot of malting science, not easy.I have studied brewing science and there is no way I would tackle malting my own grain. Good luck and hope you get a good result.
GB


----------



## kook (12/11/09)

This is what you want:

http://www.joewhitemaltings.com.au/micromalting.html


Not sure it aligns well with your "cheap" goal though. They cost more than most new family cars.


----------



## scoundrel (12/11/09)

actually this is something ive wanted to lookinto (the whole malting thing) a few people on forum have done some experimenting with malting, there was some gluten free stuff floating around a while back, and there was someone else i think it was millet man who'd malted his own millet (essentially budgie seed) and made a gluten free beer with that. 

and anyway most feed lot grain still have enough nutrients to actually germinate and grow given the right conditions. no harm in trying boys eh?


----------



## Thirsty Boy (12/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> That is what I'm wondering about mostly: Value for dollar.
> 
> I want to produce the finest and freshest of beverages possible.
> And I also want to be able to do it from the home/farm, without relying on corporate suppliers.
> ...



Yep, its OK - but those are the two points that will probably trip you up in this exercise. Worthy enough goals, but harder to do than you might think.

"I want to produce the finest and freshest of beverages possible. And I also want to be able to do it from the home/farm, without relying on corporate suppliers."

Gryphon is right - malting is a hell of a science. Oh its easy enough to malt grain. Under a wet sack for a few days, dried out in the sun. Thats malt.

But.. if your goal is high quality malt.... then it gets complicated. Its hard to make high quality malt from good barley - its bloody hard to make from marginal barley. It impossible to make from low quality barley. And god barley isnt easy to grow - you mentioned in an earlier post about home compost?? Well, if you used that, you would end up with barley that wasn't suitable for high quality malt... there is a lot of study to be done in any of the fields of Barley cropping, Malting; and Brewing.. you are taking on all three.

Not saying you cant - its an achievable goal if you are committed enough - but its a bloody big ask. I'm the same as Gryphon - a few years of studying brewing science under my belt and I wouldn't know enough to even imagine I could consistently make _good_ malt, let alone better than I could buy. I could make malt alright... but it would be hit and miss.

"That is what I'm wondering about mostly: Value for dollar"

This is the least convincing argument really. By the time you build a system that is capable of making consistent, high quality malt - you would have spent enough money to buy malt for a year or three. And if you count time as money - you could pay for all your grain and a nice holiday overseas every year if you spent as much time mowing your neighbors lawns as a part time job, as you are going to have to spend to get enough malt for your brewing.

So thats what you are in for if you decide to do this - a lot of time and effort and money - and you will still struggle to get a result as good as a sack of malt from the HB shop.

But - If thats what floats your boat - good on you, I wish you luck and hope it all turns out great.

Thirsty


----------



## pdilley (12/11/09)

Infinitee,

You are better off asking advice and what thoughts on grains are from somebody who has actually done it as you say rather than people who have not tried it.

You should try and contact this guy or find out what/how he became inspired to:
http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...showtopic=35419

As someone with hands on actual experience he will set better in your mind as a trustworthy source of opinions on the process.


Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------



## Kleiny (12/11/09)

King Brown said:


> but if you were gonna brew with a large amount of feed grain a decoction mash may be a good idea? This type of mashing was originally came up with to handle less than ideal grain or so im led to believe? It would certainly be an interesting experiment.



Decoction mashing is used for under modified malt which is usually a product from the malting process. so if you where to malt your own barley then you would aim to modify the kernel well. As suggested above, if you want to give it a go well get reading on malting and have a crack, it has been successfully completed by people on this forum before.



Darren said:


> There is of course a bigger picture here. As stated before many, many farmers have their barley rejected for malting purely because they do not know the buyer well enough, suggestive that there is alot of malting grade barley going to feed-lot.
> 
> To make things worse, a hell of alot of MALTED barley also goes to feed-lot due to over-production and also FRESHNESS.
> 
> ...



You could not be further from the truth Darren, Barley is harvested and taken to a drop off silo generally in the same district as grown. At this silo station it under go tests for grain consistency, nitrogen/protein, screenings for size of kernel. This then decides wether it is malting quality or feed and it is put into the correct section for storage and transport. This job is done by locals and all tests are recorded. I have never driven a load of our barley to the silo and seen it go malting grade (because you are in the test room) then be told that we dont know you so put it in the feed bin. LOAD OF SHIT.

If you need anymore clarification pls PM me and i will offer for you to come and sit on the header, truck it to the silo, see the testing and transfer it to the bin.



Gryphon Brewing said:


> Just a quick thought, How does crop date equate to malting date ? I have spec sheets that only mention crop date not malting date ? So it looks like you can keep barley for some years then malt it and it becomes the fresh maltings.





fear_n_loath said:


> Please, correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe many farmers sell only a portion of their immediate crop - depending on price and demand, and store grain in large silo's > 1000 ton per silo in banks of many silo's. The Silo's provide time to buffer demand / prices and maximise sale price and other economic considerations. So even local grain may not be provided to market immediately.



Depends on how it is stored obviously, farmers tend to keep enough barley for seed generally unless they have huge silo's to store grain for a better price. The problem with storing for a better price is that the local silo will have closed for the season and the farmer will have to wear the transport cost in bulk to a larger depot (usually in a major city with a dock). This transport can be a long way and at great cost.

Barley can be stored in different states' e.g. if its dormant it has to be stored until it is viable again without chemical addition. If stored right viability is not an issue and barley could be up to 3 years old by the time its transported from the farm to bulk silo and then bought by a maltster, stored on the malting premises, tested and then malted. Bagged up and sold off to the brewer.

Obviously if it is stored in poor conditions it will deteriorate quickly lose viability and possibly sprout. Nonbody other than stock farmers are going to but this. Because it is good for feed but not much else.





Sorry for some ranting and some info for a couple of the questions. I can be wrong but i do have knowledge on growing harvesting and transporting barley as it has happened on the family farm for 4 generations.

Kleiny


----------



## brettprevans (12/11/09)

Kleiny said:


> i will offer for you to come and sit on the header, truck it to the silo, see the testing and transfer it to the bin.
> Kleiny


ROADTRIP!!!!!


----------



## MarkBastard (12/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> But others just confirmed their ignorance about the base of the subject



You did in your opening post. You told us how wonderfully cheap you can get this unmalted grain, and how you can get it cracked if you want. So if you were going to malt it yourself how would having it cracked help you? I think since making this thread you have done more research to help with the arguing and make yourself look like you knew what you were talking about all along.

My 2 cents.


----------



## brettprevans (12/11/09)

+1 Mark



Infinitee said:


> I want to produce the finest and freshest of beverages possible.
> And I also want to be able to do it from the home/farm, without relying on corporate suppliers.



I refer you to the very first response (which happens to be mine). I think it answers all your questions


citymorgue2 said:


> feed grain hasnt been malted. hence unless your going to malt it yourself, its unsuitable.
> thats why we dont use it
> 
> edit: the maltsters job is to malt grain so we get the variations of grain and hence so many grain types (base, crystal, specialty etc). this also modifies the grain so its easier to brew with. I doubt they go to the expense of doing this, just to feed it to animals.
> ...


to summerize
1. we dont use feedgrain for a variety of reasons. quality etc. but mainly becuase it hasnt been malted
2. 99% of AHbers dont malt our own grain or have the technical expertese/knowledge to do so.



Infinitee said:


> Is that ok?


If perfectly fine and a great goal to work towards if you want to do that. just be aware of some of the issues raised here.

ignore the rest of the discussion if you like, but i think the answer has been covered in the first few posts. Including by Kleiny who is well on the way to becoming a qualified maltster.


----------



## Luka (12/11/09)

A quick glance at ABB Grains website reveals that there are two distinct varities that they have one for feed and one for malting barley. Commander, the malting variety is descrived as having low levels of protein which make it more suited to malting. The feed variety doesn't mention its protein levels so I can only assume that it is higher. This to me suggests that feed lot barley is not best suited to malting. Could you malt it? Absolutely, but the results probably aren't worth the effort.

Personally, I can understand the curiosity of malting your own grain but realise that I have neither the ability, knowledge or patience to learn to do it. I'd rather trust in the experts.


----------



## fergi (12/11/09)

bum said:


> This thread is 3 pages of people discussing your question.



exactly as BUM has just said, 3 pages of it, so you are not happy if we dont agree with what you have to say infinitee, well get over it because thats what this forum is all about , we dont all agree on lots of topics but in the end we get a little bit of info sometimes even when we dont agree with each other.if you think that malting your own cow food is a good way to go ,well go for it and prove us wrong, maybe you can come up with an award winning beer.
fergi


----------



## fergi (12/11/09)

Darren said:


> Great to see infinitee looking out of the "square"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




THATS A LOAD OF CRAP DARREN, COME TO THE SILOS ONE DAY AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT GOES ON, FARMERS ARE TOO SAVY TO HAVE THAT BULLSHIT PULLED ON THEM,they actually test the grain as we harvest to see exactly whats going on.


fergi


----------



## floppinab (12/11/09)

Kleiny said:


> Barley is harvested and taken to a drop off silo generally in the same district as grown. At this silo station it under go tests for grain consistency, nitrogen/protein, screenings for size of kernel. This then decides wether it is malting quality or feed and it is put into the correct section for storage and transport.
> 
> unless they have huge silo's to store grain for a better price. The problem with storing for a better price is that the local silo will have closed for the season and the farmer will have to wear the transport cost in bulk to a larger depot (usually in a major city with a dock). This transport can be a long way and at great cost.



You've contradicted yourself a little there Kleiny. I'm guessing you are saying that for the vast majority of the time the first part of the quote above is the case, so how common would the second part be. i.e. local storage on the farm with transport at a later date.

Could you elaborate on the the commercial side, just vaguely interested. The farm sells to who exactly, and I guess they then sell to the maltsters????


----------



## Kleiny (12/11/09)

floppinab said:


> You've contradicted yourself a little there Kleiny. I'm guessing you are saying that for the vast majority of the time the first part of the quote above is the case, so how common would the second part be. i.e. local storage on the farm with transport at a later date.
> 
> Could you elaborate on the the commercial side, just vaguely interested. The farm sells to who exactly, and I guess they then sell to the maltsters????



Most of the time the harvest is taken from the paddock to the silos during harvest, This is because most farmers dont have to capacity to store large amounts of grain on site other than what they will use in the coming year for seed. 

How common, not very unless you are a large corporation style farm with silo space and own transport. In our area if the price is crap you may keep it (if you can) for a later date or just for feed. e.g. in the 90's the price of oats dropped out and we had maybe 200 acres of oats in. The decision in our case was to keep the grain for sheep feed and sell some local to the hoarse stables, It was a pain in the arse to keep as we had to build temporary silos in the sheds. Overall not really worth the hassle but because the price at the pool silo was so crap it was actually costing money to harvest the crop.

On the commercial side the grain is basically accepted in 2 groups Malting and Feed with different grades there in Feed1, Feed2, Malt1, Malt2. The grain is stored at the local pool silo and the farmer gets paid going rate of the day (yes prices can vary each day or even during the day) what was $190/tonne can go up and down. This payment is comes from the commercial distributor AWB etc (there only was AWB originally but now there are aloud to be independent silos, which can offer higher or lower prices). Now this is where it gets a bit more complicated. AWB etc have contracts with major buyers to supply x amount of tonnes e.g. Suadi Arabia or china (the largest taker of malt barley in the world) who take it by the huge boat load. So they get paid from them. These grain could be stored for at least 6-12 months at the bulk silo's whilst the harvest finishes across the country and they are loaded for export.

The farmer can take a contract to supply x tonnes but there are risks, the contracted price could end up lower than the pool price or if you cant supply the full amount in a bad year there are clauses which spell out real problems.

I hope this answers some q's by no means am i an expert in the field and stand to be corrected at anytime. Maybe PM me if you want more info i can find some sources, just not on this thread as its getting away from the OP.

Kleiny


----------



## floppinab (12/11/09)

Thanks for that, certainly going OT, so I'll stop there apart from saying a little digging myself on the GrainCorp and ABB websites has answered a number of my questions as well.

Edit : stuff already in another post


----------



## raven19 (12/11/09)

Darren said:


> Raven,
> 
> Malt a bit and let us know how it goes.
> 
> ...



Sounds like a plan! Will keep you posted on progress.


----------



## beerDingo (12/11/09)

Infinitee said:


> I appreciate the bulk of the answers provided here ...
> 
> But I just thought there'd be less shit-slinging on a differently-approached idea ...
> 
> ...



Good on ya, give it a go and get back to us!

We all have different reasons why we started to brew. However, I'd assume that the majority of us started so that we could make cheap beer. Then we discovered that we can make really nice beer (cheaply), and even better quality than the megaswill. Now we seem to buy more expensive beer when we actually buy it. 

However, I'd say that those of us that continue to do it, either enjoy doing it as a hobby, and therefore like to try new and sometimes wacky things. Or continue to do it because we are making nice beer, at a fraction of the price than you can get it at a bottle shop.

So, go for it! Don't listen to those that tell you that you can ONLY use grain, hops, water and yeast! (even though, you are probably still using only these ingredients).

There is nothing wrong with trying to take your hobby/passion to the n'th degree! I'm sure some of the nay sayers do this, but just in other areas of their brewing.


----------



## Infinitee (12/11/09)

^_^ What beautiful spirit.

That's what I needed.

& I know there's an innovative, creative bunch of bastards here
Just seeing what I could extract with the odd prod.

Sure delivered a response though :lol: 

Kleiny, thanks for the insights. OT maybe, but it was sure interesting to me.

And BP, absinthe's post on his malt dryer kiln was excellent.
Was a bunch of links in that thread that were VERY enlightening.

Am growing my own grains atm.
One of the most informative bits of info in this thread for me has been the knowledge that too nitrogenous a grain will produce a poorer malt.
I will certainly withhold the compost and trial growing them with a bit less nutrient
Plainer grain, purer malt - makes sense.
Problem is if you want to make porridge from half your crop and malt from the other.

Here's to creativity, diversity, economy and ...
Yeah and to you lot as well.
I say old chaps, good thread!
:icon_cheers:


----------



## Asher (12/11/09)

I have a question...

Why do maltsters kiln base malt? to dry it to preserve it mostly is my guess.

Why can't you just germinate a feed lot or any unmalted barley for that matter at home and just crush and mash with it straight away when it reached the correct modification (measure via acrospire length?)

Maybe add a little more specialty grain for any loss in melanoidins from not kilning the base malt.

Just an idea

Asher


----------



## jonocarroll (12/11/09)

Asher said:


> I have a question...Why do maltsters kiln base malt? to dry it to preserve it mostly is my guess.
> 
> Why can't you just germinate a feed lot or any unmalted barley for that matter at home and just crush and mash with it straight away when it reached the correct modification (measure via endosperm length?)


My understanding is that kilning:

- reduces the moisture content (may not be such an issue if using it straight away, but not sure)
- stops the germination process and denatures the enzymes responsible for germination, leaving those responsible for starch conversion.

Not sure how one would go with unkilned malt. Too difficult to crush?

Oh, and you mean acrospire length, not endosperm length, yeah?


----------



## Darren (12/11/09)

Asher said:


> I have a question...
> 
> Why do maltsters kiln base malt? to dry it to preserve it mostly is my guess.
> 
> ...




Hi Asher,

To prevent mycotoxin contamination.

http://sgrl.csiro.au/aptc1998/16_webley_jackson.pdf

cheers

Darren


----------



## Asher (12/11/09)

acrospire - yeah that what I ment...

They were the reasons I came up with off the top of my head:
- reduces the moisture content (so it doesn't go mouldy in storage - not storing it so no worries there)
- stops the germination process and denatures the enzymes responsible for germination, leaving those responsible for starch conversion (Milling and mashing will do that too) 
- To prevent mycotoxin contamination (no time for fungi to grow - as mashing with it straight away). 
Wait a minute... so does the kilning to above 100c kill any pre-existing mycotoxins? if so, then this could scuttle my theory!
Won't the boil kill any mycotoxins anyway?

.....So if infinitee could find a mill for crushing wet grain (good old porket to the rescue) he could be onto a winner



This was inspired by the bourbon in the bathtub recipe?
goes kinda like:

- Purchase 50kg bag of feed grad barley
- Pour into bathtub
- Wet/rinse/stir/drain for a week to germinate
- Put plug in
- Use stab mixer to macerate grain
- Fill with hot water from tap (very hot water) to get to mashing temp.
- Mash for however long it takes to cool back down
- Throw in a bag or two of turbo yeast
- leave for a week
- Shovel the lot into (something that isn't discussed on the forum)
- Take product and age for 10 years in oak
- Bobs your uncle


----------



## Darren (12/11/09)

Asher said:


> - To prevent mycotoxin contamination (no time for fungi to grow - as mashing with it straight away).
> Wait a minute... so does the kilning to above 100c kill any pre-existing mycotoxins? if so, then this could scuttle my theory!
> Won't the boil kill any mycotoxins anyway?




Nope, very heat resistant

cheers

Darren


----------



## ausdb (12/11/09)

Just getting things slightly back on topic, I found this Norwegian brewers page with info on Home malting which is interesting.


----------



## Kai (12/11/09)

Asher said:


> I have a question...
> 
> Why do maltsters kiln base malt? to dry it to preserve it mostly is my guess.
> 
> ...



Off the top of my head I would also say kilning also reduces compounds like SMM (DMS precursor). Perhaps another factor to consider downstream in the brewing process.

Might be a way to make your lovely lagers extra pale though.


----------



## Darren (12/11/09)

Kai said:


> Off the top of my head I would also say kilning also reduces compounds like SMM (DMS precursor). Perhaps another factor to consider downstream in the brewing process.
> 
> Might be a way to make your lovely lagers extra pale though.





Kai,

Nup, Its the growth of fungal spores that have the potential to cause significant mortalty.

Just ask your local maltster obout Fusaruim species and their methods to keep it in control. 

Also ask your supplier of imported malts of the levels of toxin contamination. Some contries will not take excessive levels ((EU)

cheers

darren


----------



## MHB (12/11/09)

I think you will find that malt has to be allowed to rest for a couple of weeks after kilning before its used for brewing.
Cant remember the details but apparently you get really crappy beer from green malt, will look in a couple of books tonight.
Funny how all the textbooks start all out with a big section on malting before the section on brewing wonder if theres a link between good brewing malt and good beer and whether the authors think brewers should understand beers most basic ingredient.
MHB


----------



## MHB (12/11/09)

Kunze says 4 weeks in silo before malt can be used, otherwise mashing and lautering problems will be encountered. Doesnt go into the mechanics of why.
MHB


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/11/09)

Kilning is to:

Dry the malt for stable storage (part of which is of course to prevent mold growth and the toxicity Darren refers to) but also to "kill" the grain, stop modification and respiration and to prevent other non lethal molds and insect infestation. 

Dry off and allow the removal of the culmns (rootlets etc)

Drive off volatile flavour and aroma compounds - of which there are plenty including DMS

Develop colour and flavour - most of the "maltiness" you taste is derived from mailard reactions in the kiln.

Denaturing of enzymes is a side effect of kilning rather than an object - the enzymes responsible for germination... are mostly the ones that convert starch. Oh sure there are plenty in there that do get denatured, but that's not the object of the game.

But green malt and malt which has been only dried not kilned at higher temperatures is perfectly safe to use... not to store though. Brewers used to use a malt called "white malt" which was basically an unkilned dried malt, very enzymatically active, and I believe that this and also occasionally actual green malt is sometimes used in the distilling industry. As MHB suggested, I understand that green malt makes for nasty flavours in beer due to all the remaining volatile compounds.

The storage period for malt is at least partly about allowing the uneven moisture content in any given batch of malt to "even out" in the silo so that you get uniform performance out of your mills and thus predictable brewhouse performance.

That the way I understand it at least

Thirsty


----------

