# Powells Malt - My Experiences



## MAH

This will be a several part post describing my recent experiences. Please note these are simply my experiences and hopefully others might find some of it interesting.

It all started after reading a few articles on Powells malt, in particular that they are floor malting, I wanted to try their product. This is because I'm increasingly convinced that grain variety eg Mariss Otter, Golden Promise, Sloop etc has less of an inpact on the final product as compared to the way the grain is malted. I reckon fresh floor malted generic Aussie barley, should be better than non-floor malted MO that was harvested God knows when, and then shipped half way.


*Customer Service*
I contacted the company and asked if they would sell to a home brew group, and they said no problems. Powells generously offered to give me the 1 tonne price break on an order of 400kg or more, and I had no problems with getting enough home brewers to order a pallet (500kg).

At the Powells end, they arranged for the transport and all I had to do was hand over the money. Nice easy and hassle free. It was mostly done via email. They don't seem to get to their emails too quickly and there can be a couple days wait, but they do eventually respond. They even followed up with a few phone calls to me, which is pretty good considering I'm a non-commercial buyer.

Since delivery there have been a few issues (to be discussed later) which I've needed to follow up with them, mainly in relation to their quality assurance. Again it hasn't been the quickest of efforts on Powells behalf, but they have managed to get back to me. 

So from my experience I would say they're welcoming, generous, but a little slow in communication. This is fine for me as a home brewer but would p!$$ me off if I was a commerical customer (but then again a commercial customer buying in large regular quantities would probably get better service - or at least you would hope so).


----------



## MAH

*Quality Assurance*

With only a 500kg order I've noticed a number of QA issues. One might of been acceptable, but the handfull of issues that have arisen would suggest that they need to concentrate on their QA a lot more.

The Mystery Malt
First QA issue was to do with a bag of Caramalt. It might have said Caramalt on the label, but what we found was a mystery base malt. It definitely wasn't a crystal of any sort. When you bite into the malt there is no glazed apperance to the grain, and it certainly isn't in the 15-30 EBC range. Powells kindly offered to replace the malt, but said they couldn't offer me a bag of Caramalt becuase "the only bags we have in stock are from the same batch ,and might give the same result".

Mouldy Malt
I opened a bag of Munich and as I weighed the malt I could see that quite a few grains had a greeny blue tinge. 90% of these grains would have been broken in two and the colour was on the exposed ends. Other whole grains also had this colouring, but to a much lesser degree. Enough of the grains had this colouring to make it quite visible, and you didn't have too look to hard to see it. My guess is this colouring is due to staining from mould growth. No idea at what stage it occured, but it's there. When you taste the affected grains they've a very strong acrid and foul flavour. I certainly wouldn't use it to brew with.

I contacted all the brewers in the bulk order and no other malt was affected in this way.

None Malt Matter
Another thing that stood out was the amount of vegetable matter that isn't malt. Compared to malt from other companies, there's loads of stalks, burrs etc. It's all soft vegetable matter, and I haven't found any stones or anything like that. It's not a significant problem with the malt, but again it's a QA issue.

Broken and Uneven Sized Grains
The malt contains a considerable amount of grain that's broken into 2 or more pieces and there's lots of uneven sized grains. As a homebrewer I don't think this is a major issue, but for a commercial brewer it might be.


----------



## Gout

great write up, look forward to the comments on the finished beers

cheers


----------



## Doc

Great post MAH.

I was lucky enough to be given some Powell's malt for some test brews last year. 
I too noticed the foreign objects in the malt such as grass/straw, stalks/stems etc.
Also the uneven grain size meant that I had to run the grain through my mill three times (as opposed to the normal two that I do).

The resultant beer was very good though (if you are into strong hoppy Pils beers) 

Beers,
Doc


----------



## MAH

*First Brew*

To date the only beer that I've tried to brew with the Powells malt was a Mild. I used the ale malt as the base malt.

First thing I noticed about the malt was the great smell. When I opened the tub of malt I was hit with a wonderful whaft of fresh malt aroma.

The crush was also first rate. The grain cracked very easily and I was able to open the gap on my Valley Mill wider than usual. This preserved the husks more, but the inside still crushed up really well. End result was that it made for an easy lauter (I batch sparge).

Again the aroma of the run-off was great and it had a really nice malt flavour. At the end of the boil my partner came home and she also commented on how good it smelt.

I can't make too many comments on how it fermented. I pitched 11gms of Windsor ale yeast into 22litres of wort, which should have done the job nicely, but that night we were hit with a bit of a cold spell, and in the morning the wort temp had dropped to 12C. It flucuated a bit over the next couple of days, but never really got into ale fermenting temps. Consequently it was a sluggish ferment so I can't comment too much on how it attenuates after mashing at 66C.

I'll have to leave the next update for a week or so, before it has dropped clear, kegged and gassed.


----------



## Sean

I've noticed most of the above - straw etc (not the wrong malt or significant mould), but just taken it on board as part of buying from a craft producer (not to mention one presumably still working some of the quirks out of the system). In any event, my second sack had significantly less straw etc than the first.

The bottom line is quality of beer, which so far has been first rate. Enough so for me to take delivery of another 4 sacks.


----------



## warrenlw63

Doc said:


> I too noticed the foreign objects in the malt such as grass/straw, stalks/stems etc.
> Also the uneven grain size meant that I had to run the grain through my mill three times
> [post="65164"][/post]​



These symptoms are not mutually exclusive to Powells. Your average bag of Joe White's can reveal similar signs too. Namely stalks and uneven kernels.

Warren -


----------



## AndrewQLD

I'd agree with you there Warren, I have just opened a bag of Joe white pilsner malt, a fair bit of straw and such, also a few stones that the mill didn't like.
I found the crush with this bag was really good, the grains were very friable and went through the mill very quickly compared to the last bag.

Andrew


----------



## sosman

MAH - thanks for writing that up. Did you pass this on to Powells? What was his response?

I have been brewing with Powells malt for well over 6 months now and haven't had any of the problems you mentioned - although someone (Gout?) did say he noticed lots of foreign matter in the pale malt.

I have done a Marzen with 80% of their munich malt and apart from screwing up on brewday with the wrong ingredients, I couldn't complain about the malt profile.

I have used their ale, munich and wheat malt and I wouldn't mind checking out their crystal malt when vermont fuel and produce get some in.

cheers


----------



## MAH

Sean said:


> The bottom line is quality of beer, which so far has been first rate. Enough so for me to take delivery of another 4 sacks.
> [post="65179"][/post]​



Yep I agree the bottom line is quality beer. But if there are significant quality assurance issues, which mean you can't consistently make a quality beer, then it's a problem. For myself the issues I've experienced with Powells haven't been enough to put me off trying them again, because for me it's only meant an inconvenience. However for a commercial enterprise it might make a financial impact that's unacceptable.

In my small order of 500kg, there were three QA issues that could prove costly, 1) mislabled malt, 2) mouldy malt and 3) numerous broken grains. If I experienced all this in a small order, just multiply the potential QA issues for a commercial order.

Yeah I accept that they're working on these problems, and I hope they fix them. But I'm of the opinion that when it comes to business, you don't open your doors to the public until you have your QA procedures in place. It's extremely difficult to change market perceptions if you get it wrong in the first place. Much easier and less costly to work through as many QA issues as possible before you get a negative market reputation.

Unfortunately for Powells that perception is already out there to some degree. I was at a brew day on the weekend and one of the brewers who is starting a commercial venture, wasn't interested in Powells as a supplier for some of these QA issues.

Just as a side note, at the same brew day, one of the science type boffins, said that the mouldy malt has the potential to contain compounds that are some of the most toxic to the liver. If true that's a huge QA issue.

But as I said at the start, these are just my experiences and I really do hope Powells succeed.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Batz

Firstly thankyou MAH for a very informative and interesting post.
And thankyou for the time taken to reply to my PMs , much appreciated.

Couple of questions here as you have wet my appetite regards a bulk purchase of malt.

What happened to the mouldy malt and mystery malt ?
Did Powells replace it for you?
If they did, did they freight you a new sack?

Overall I take it you are happy with the malt for the price you paid.

There seems enough interest from the Queensland boys for us to follow suit.

Thanks again

Batz


----------



## Sean

I'm not excusing mislabeled malt or mouldy malt, both of which are inexcusable but I hadn't heard of elsewhere. I was really responding to the third point, (other stuff in the malt) which, based on my experience in the UK, does tend to go hand in hand with the smaller craft maltings. If you want consistency at the expense of everything else, you go for the big maltings. If you want quality at the expense of some consistency, combined with local service geared to small customers, you go for the smaller independent floor maltings. Of course, real ale is intrisically an inconsistent product, and so enthusiasts are used to prefering quality over consistency. 

Anyone would love to work all the bugs out of the system before you go to market. Generally, though, this isn't a luxury you can afford. The reality of needing an income means you have to go to market at some point, ready or not. Anyone serious will recognise that and be prepared to retry them again when they are established.

It should also be noted, that there are plenty of small brewers out there disatisfied with the service they get from the big maltings already.



> Just as a side note, at the same brew day, one of the science type boffins, said that the mouldy malt has the potential to contain compounds that are some of the most toxic to the liver. If true that's a huge QA issue.


True, but if it's as obviously bad as you say it is hard to believe anyone would make beer with it (or that said beer would be drinkable if they did).


----------



## johnno

I have been using them since last year and I have to say I have been very happy with them. I have found some stalks in some of the batches I have got but nothing to wory about. I have never seen any funny coloured grain.
I get mine from Grain and Grape..
No affiliation with any place mentioned here.

cheers
johnno


----------



## Wort Pig

The Powells malt in which I have brewed with, (all pale ale brews, and 3 of them only at that!) have all displayed heaps of protien break in the boil. Im not sure as to the specs of these malts, but found the resulant beers to be quite ok.
However, I did find quite a bit of foreign matter ie stalks, grass and a couple of stones. The grain plumpness and husk quality was also lacking uniformity.
I love the idea of boutique maltings, and hope these guys can stick at it and iron out early probs and be a competitive supplier in this growing market. 
Does anyone know as to what barley varieties they are using? ie Gairdner, Schooner, etc.


----------



## dicko

A big thanks to MAH for his efforts on the bulk purchase and also a big thanks to each and all of the other AHB'ers who have organised bulk purchases with all the other consumables.
From a guy who lives 600 kilometers from a capital city it is a big saving for me and enables me to persue my brewing hobby/obsession at a more economical level.
Thanks to all, and "go the bulk buy"
Cheers


----------



## MAH

Sean said:


> Anyone would love to work all the bugs out of the system before you go to market. Generally, though, this isn't a luxury you can afford. The reality of needing an income means you have to go to market at some point, ready or not. Anyone serious will recognise that and be prepared to retry them again when they are established.



Hi Sean

I agree with what your saying. Real life means that you often do have to go to the market before all the bugs are ironed out. However we probably have different definitions of QA. I'm not talking about having a system so well refined that there are no production problems, when I was refering to QA I meant systems that pick up these production problems and limit the impact of such problems. In this example the mouldy malt is obviously a production problem. But from a manufacturing perspective, you would expect that batches of malt are inspected and analysed for quality. At this stage (a QA stage) the production problem should have been picked up and the batch of malt should never have been sold. Even if you can't iron out the all the bugs of production, it's paramount to the repuation of a business that systems are in place to identify a problem when it occurs. As already mentioned, for manufacturing, the minimum standard is post production inspections. The consequences of getting a negative market reputation should be seriously weighed up against the need to start generating a revenue stream, because it could cost you even more in marketing to change initial perceptions.





Sean said:


> Anyone serious will recognise that and be prepared to retry them again when they are established.



Personally, I will try them again, because I love the idea of floor maltings and a fresh product not damaged by excess transport times and conditions. I also encourage all on AHB to try Powells for themself. But in business if you try a product and it doesn't meet your expectations you find a new supplier. If that new supplier provides a high quality and consistent product there is no incentive to then re-try the original supplier. Get it right first time and secure your market share.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## davidp

I use Powell's and have had no problems. The odd bit of straw or small stone, but that makes up a minute proportion and hasn't posed any problems.

The point I'd like to make is that I'm sure Powell's sample their batches to check for quality. However, I'm not clear on how much of your order has a quality assurance issue.

If Powell's take a sample of each batch, and give it the all clear, the whole batch may still be unsatisfactory , just by the nature of probablity. Say you give it the all clear with an alpha=0.05 - there's still a 5% chance that the batch is in fact unsatisfactory. You may just have been unlucky - and that's a perfectly valid outcome in quality assurance. It's either impossible or completely impractical to that guarantee 100% of what is shipped out the door is of a satisfactory quality. I think you'll find this is true of any manufacturing process, whether you're making TV's, corn chips or malt.


----------



## Jim_Levet

The RedOak Brewery gets through a truckload of Powell's Malts, Organic Pilsner & Wheat I am certain of. 
James


----------



## warrenlw63

Think that Holgate also uses Powells. ??

Warren -


----------



## davidp

warrenlw63 said:


> Think that Holgate also uses Powells. ??
> 
> Warren -
> [post="65380"][/post]​



Yep.



> As Brew left Romsey, Grant and Michael Powell were busy loading bags of caramalt onto a truck for delivery to Paul Holgate at the Holgate Brewhouse in Woodend. Holgate confirmed later that the malt was destined for a strong, Belgian ale style beer to be named Double Trouble.


(From here)


----------



## Ross

warrenlw63 said:


> Think that Holgate also uses Powells. ??
> 
> Warren -
> [post="65380"][/post]​



Hope that wasn't the cause of the 2nd worst draught beer (Holgate Pilsner) accolade they achieved on my recent trip - There again their bottled white wit was probably the best wheat beer tasted on the trip also...


----------



## Tony

recently purchased 25 kg bag of hoepfner wheat malt from ESB in sydney and it had a lot of barley mived in to it, i recon 10%.

Got it chaep for $33 so im not complaining but...........


----------



## MAH

The Taste Test

Well last night I put the beer to the taste test and it's come up a treat. The beer was a Mild and at an OG of only 1.035, it needs a good malt to give the beer enough flavour. In the past I've used Thomas Fawcett's floor malted Mariss Otter for the base malt of this beer and they've always been a success (at least to my tastes). I reckon the Powells Ale malt performed just as well. Even with a sluggish ferment, the beer has fermented out extremely well.

So in terms of taste, I'd give this malt an initial thumbs up.

As I said all along, these are just my experiences, but I would encourage all AHB members to give the malt a try.

My thoughst are that the combination of traditional floor malting practices coupled with freshness make this a pretty good malt (other issues aside).

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Sean

MAH said:


> The Taste Test
> 
> Well last night I put the beer to the taste test and it's come up a treat. The beer was a Mild and at an OG of only 1.035, it needs a good malt to give the beer enough flavour. In the past I've used Thomas Fawcett's floor malted Mariss Otter for the base malt of this beer and they've always been a success (at least to my tastes). I reckon the Powells Ale malt performed just as well. Even with a sluggish ferment, the beer has fermented out extremely well.
> 
> So in terms of taste, I'd give this malt an initial thumbs up.
> 
> As I said all along, these are just my experiences, but I would encourage all AHB members to give the malt a try.
> 
> My thoughst are that the combination of traditional floor malting practices coupled with freshness make this a pretty good malt (other issues aside).
> 
> Cheers
> MAH
> [post="65651"][/post]​


If it can brew a good Mild, that's a very good test. Mild is heavily dependent on a good base malt and a good yeast (and a good brewer). I haven't done a Mild with it yet - that's on the agenda for next week.

Any chance of posting your recipe for interest's sake?


----------



## MAH

Hi Sean

Recipe was fairly simple.

OG 1.035
Mashed at 66C for 90 minutes
3.2kg Powells Ale
200gm TF Brown
150 TF Chocolate
150 TF Crystal

17IBU's
UK Fuggle 28gms @ 60mins
UK Fuggle 14gms @ 0mins

Windsor dried yeast.

Not sure if I would bother with the Brown malt in the future and will probably just stick with ale, chocolate and crystal.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## warrenlw63

MAH,

Did you use the Pale Choc? It's good stuff.

Warren -


----------



## MAH

warrenlw63 said:


> MAH,
> 
> Did you use the Pale Choc? It's good stuff.
> 
> Warren -
> [post="65675"][/post]​




Hi Warren

No, it was the standard Chocolate. 940EBC I think.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Malnourished

Anybody care to comment on extract efficiency with Powell's malts? 
I noticed a slight drop when using the Pilsner malt (though it was with unmalted spelt so that may account for some of it), but I only got about 50% efficiency (down from ~80%) with the organic malt.


----------



## Ross

Malnourished said:


> Anybody care to comment on extract efficiency with Powell's malts?
> I noticed a slight drop when using the Pilsner malt (though it was with unmalted spelt so that may account for some of it), but I only got about 50% efficiency (down from ~80%) with the organic malt.
> [post="65811"][/post]​



would hardly call a 30% decrease slight?


----------



## Sean

I've only used the Pale Ale malt (and wheat as a character malt), but I haven't observed any change in my efficiency of Fawcetts or Whites. (Not that I try for super efficiency - I get 70% consistantly and I'm happy with that.)


----------



## sosman

Malnourished said:


> Anybody care to comment on extract efficiency with Powell's malts?
> I noticed a slight drop when using the Pilsner malt (though it was with unmalted spelt so that may account for some of it), but I only got about 50% efficiency (down from ~80%) with the organic malt.
> [post="65811"][/post]​


I haven't noticed any difference in extract. I have only used their wheat, ale and munich malts.


----------



## Malnourished

Ross said:


> would hardly call a 30% decrease slight?
> [post="65813"][/post]​



To clarify:
Powell's Pilsner malt - ~5-10% drop
Powell's Organic malt - ~30% drop.

It makes sense that organic malt would give less extract, but this seems extreme. 
Is there any chance it needs a different (non-infusion) mash schedule? I would think it's unlikely...


----------



## Sean

Malnourished said:


> Ross said:
> 
> 
> 
> would hardly call a 30% decrease slight?
> [post="65813"][/post]​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify:
> Powell's Pilsner malt - ~5-10% drop
> Powell's Organic malt - ~30% drop.
> 
> It makes sense that organic malt would give less extract, but this seems extreme.
> Is there any chance it needs a different (non-infusion) mash schedule? I would think it's unlikely...
> [post="65823"][/post]​
Click to expand...

Was this a single brew or a repeat experience?

Anyone else tried the organic?


----------



## Malnourished

Sean said:


> Was this a single brew or a repeat experience?
> 
> [post="65824"][/post]​



Only once each...


----------



## Batz

I'll like too try a bag of caramalt to divie up as well , but I am a bit suss on this one after MAH's report , may come from the same batch.

Batz


----------



## MAH

Quick update. Powells have been in touch with me about the Caramalt and Munich malt. Seems that they found a couple more bags of the Munich with mould. They believe it has occured due to moisture coming up throught the concrete floor.

Powells have offered to replace both bags with Ale malt.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## GMK

Mark

That is excellent customer service !


----------



## Boots

I have just had a look at the half bag of Organic Pilsener which I went in on with Roach. He'd previously said he'd checked it so I didn't bother looking.... 
Was sharing a beer with Dicko and the conversation turned to malt so we had a look .... and I found mouldy grain.

Lots of the split grains where covered on the open part of the grain (i.e. not the husk, but the inside). A fair few whole grains also had mould along the seam of the grain.

So anyone who got the organic pilsener should make sure their grain is good.

Similar results as everyone else re: foreign matter.


----------



## nonicman

G'day Boots,
I'm keen on trying this grain, please post the feedback/response from Powells to this problem. Hopefully if notified they will recheck their stocks and I will recieve a mould free bag . If they respond as they did with Mah, all should be good. Hopefully this is a production/storage problem they have since overcome.

Cheers


----------



## Batz

nonicman I have emailed Powells regards our concerns about these problems , I have also given them the link to this thread.

I will await thier response before well place our order.

Batz


----------



## Boots

I wasn't going to worry about getting my grain returned. It was only half a bag, so the freight costs and trouble, in conjunction with a rather severe case of laziness make it not worth the trouble. I'll just ditch it unless I get talked out of it between now and then. They've already been notified of the problem by MAH.

I am a bit worried about the other brewer I shared the bag with, as he's already brewed with it, but he's out of town at the moment. Not sure how he missed it.

It's obviously a pretty big problem, as this means that there are multiple different batches of malt mouldy, and mislabeled.

I hope Powells get it all sorted out.


----------



## dicko

Boots said:


> I have just had a look at the half bag of Organic Pilsener which I went in on with Roach. He'd previously said he'd checked it so I didn't bother looking....
> Was sharing a beer with Dicko and the conversation turned to malt so we had a look .... and I found mouldy grain.
> 
> Lots of the split grains where covered on the open part of the grain (i.e. not the husk, but the inside). A fair few whole grains also had mould along the seam of the grain.
> 
> So anyone who got the organic pilsener should make sure their grain is good.
> 
> Similar results as everyone else re: foreign matter.
> [post="66158"][/post]​



Yes, I was surprised but Boots' grain has some " mouldy grains" among the good ones.
I received 4 bags and they all appear OK but the organic that Boots received was a bad sample.
I'll put it this way - 
If a farmer turned up to a silo with a sample that was as mouldy as the sample I saw at Boots' place then he would be sent home with the load destined for "chook feed". His description is very accurate.
I have been away and lost the direction of this thread but if Boots shared a bag with Roach, *then* IMO Powells owe them another bag(between them).
Cheers

*then* was the edit


----------



## Guest Lurker

Mr Wizard in BYO says below that mould on malt can be pretty nasty. Note that aflatoxins could potentially grow on malt, and the bad thing about them is they dont just make you sick, they potentially cause cancer as well. Not trying to stir things up, and I aint no microbiologist, just pointing out that while in many cases I might eat something after scraping the mould off, I wouldnt be too keen on brewing with a mouldy malt.

From BYO website

Dear Mr. Wizard: 

I bought some malt extract in 10-pound pails. I recently noticed that mold has developed on top of the malt. Has this ruined my extract or will the mold be eliminated in the boil? Can I scrape the top layer off and use what is left? Will refrigeration of the malt prevent mold? Please help! 
John O'Brien 
Via e-mail 

Mr. Wizard replies: Malt extract and damp malt will grow mold. Moldy grain certainly should not be used for brewing and I personally would not use malt extract with mold on the surface, though some brewers do. Removing the mold from the surface of the extract may completely remove the mold from the container but then again it may not. Mold is bad for two main reasons. 
Moldy grain is a known cause of gushing in beer. Certain molds, for example Fusarium species, excrete proteins that act as nucleation sites for carbon dioxide break-out in finished beer. In simple terms this means that when a bottle of beer is opened, the carbon dioxide uncontrollably breaks out of solution and a huge foamy mess gushes from the beer bottle. This is why it is called "gushing." The same thing could possibly result from using moldy malt extract. 
Another reason to avoid using moldy malt or malt extract is that certain molds produce mycotoxins (toxins from mold) when they grow. Although many mycotoxins are completely destroyed when heated, some mycotoxins become more toxic when heated, as is the case with certain types of aflotoxin. This same concern applies to eating moldy foods. Not all molds are bad and some add a very nice flavor to food, such as Penicillium roqefortii that is used to make blue cheese. 
The mold growing on your malt extract is most likely an airborne mold that came into contact with extract when you first opened it for use. Refrigeration will certainly slow the growth of mold and will extend the shelf-life of pails that are opened and only partially used. However, molds will grow in the refrigerator given enough time. Mold growth can be prevented on grains by storing grain in a dry environment.


----------



## dicko

Guest Lurker said:


> Mr Wizard in BYO says below that mould on malt can be pretty nasty. Note that aflatoxins could potentially grow on malt, and the bad thing about them is they dont just make you sick, they potentially cause cancer as well. Not trying to stir things up, and I aint no microbiologist, just pointing out that while in many cases I might eat something after scraping the mould off, I wouldnt be too keen on brewing with a mouldy malt.
> 
> From BYO website
> 
> Dear Mr. Wizard:
> 
> I bought some malt extract in 10-pound pails. I recently noticed that mold has developed on top of the malt. Has this ruined my extract or will the mold be eliminated in the boil? Can I scrape the top layer off and use what is left? Will refrigeration of the malt prevent mold? Please help!
> John O'Brien
> Via e-mail
> 
> Mr. Wizard replies: Malt extract and damp malt will grow mold. Moldy grain certainly should not be used for brewing and I personally would not use malt extract with mold on the surface, though some brewers do. Removing the mold from the surface of the extract may completely remove the mold from the container but then again it may not. Mold is bad for two main reasons.
> Moldy grain is a known cause of gushing in beer. Certain molds, for example Fusarium species, excrete proteins that act as nucleation sites for carbon dioxide break-out in finished beer. In simple terms this means that when a bottle of beer is opened, the carbon dioxide uncontrollably breaks out of solution and a huge foamy mess gushes from the beer bottle. This is why it is called "gushing." The same thing could possibly result from using moldy malt extract.
> Another reason to avoid using moldy malt or malt extract is that certain molds produce mycotoxins (toxins from mold) when they grow. Although many mycotoxins are completely destroyed when heated, some mycotoxins become more toxic when heated, as is the case with certain types of aflotoxin. This same concern applies to eating moldy foods. Not all molds are bad and some add a very nice flavor to food, such as Penicillium roqefortii that is used to make blue cheese.
> The mold growing on your malt extract is most likely an airborne mold that came into contact with extract when you first opened it for use. Refrigeration will certainly slow the growth of mold and will extend the shelf-life of pails that are opened and only partially used. However, molds will grow in the refrigerator given enough time. Mold growth can be prevented on grains by storing grain in a dry environment.
> [post="66254"][/post]​



Hi GL,
I agree that I wouldn't use mouldy grain ( with the risks ) and I would include the grain that I saw at Boots' I would be discarding or replacing.
Cheers


----------



## roach

Boots said:


> I wasn't going to worry about getting my grain returned. It was only half a bag, so the freight costs and trouble, in conjunction with a rather severe case of laziness make it not worth the trouble. I'll just ditch it unless I get talked out of it between now and then. They've already been notified of the problem by MAH.
> 
> I am a bit worried about the other brewer I shared the bag with, as he's already brewed with it, but he's out of town at the moment. Not sure how he missed it.
> 
> It's obviously a pretty big problem, as this means that there are multiple different batches of malt mouldy, and mislabeled.
> 
> I hope Powells get it all sorted out.
> [post="66223"][/post]​


brewed with 2kg of the powells organic a amonth ago in making an APA. I took the 2kg from the top of the bag and it literally had 1 or 2 mouldy grains in the 2kgs and so thought it was OK and proceeded to brew it. tried it out of the keg for the first time on the weekend and tastes OK. given the info from Mr Wiz, via GL, I will probably turf it. 

I suspect the mould has grown from the bottom of the bag from which happened to be Boots's half(sorry m8). So the bag has probably drawn some moisture from the bottom somehow when stored before shipping. In checking the remainder of my half bag this morning I notice that the mould is now quite prominent and so has grown from just a slight trace to something that you would never brew with.

thanks to boots, gl and dicko for the info. I would probably not have checked the grain again for another month by which time it would have had a life of its on and the keg would have been emptied. Perhaps the mould problem is ocurring with their slower moving stock.

the rest of the powells malt appears mould free and based on previous brewing experiences with it has turned out a good beer.


----------



## dicko

As Roach said the mould problem could be due to poor storage allowing moisture to take hold.
I did notice that the bag that the Powells Malt comes in is a paper type product for want of a better description and most of the other maltsters products seem to be packed in a plastic type bag. I have thrown the Powells bags away so i can't be sure if they actually had a liner.
Maybe the paper type is cheaper but at what cost in the long run??
I personally would be asking Powells for another bag. <_< 
Cheers


----------



## MAH

Hi Dicko

The Powells malt comes in double walled paper with a plastic liner. It's not as tough or as well sealed as other malsts I've used, but these have been for export malts that probably require the extra precautions.

I would say that the packaging is probably quite suitable for a product aimed at the local market and would help to reduce cost to the purchaser. 

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Sean

dicko said:


> As Roach said the mould problem could be due to poor storage allowing moisture to take hold.
> I did notice that the bag that the Powells Malt comes in is a paper type product for want of a better description and most of the other maltsters products seem to be packed in a plastic type bag. I have thrown the Powells bags away so i can't be sure if they actually had a liner.
> Maybe the paper type is cheaper but at what cost in the long run??
> I personally would be asking Powells for another bag. <_<
> Cheers
> [post="66298"][/post]​


There is a liner inside the paper. I haven't tested them or anything but they look to me to be at least as moisture proof as the Joe Whites sacks, and I'd have thought paper is more likely to show signs of damp on the outside.


----------



## Batz

I have recieved a reply from Powells
as you can see some of thier malt will be definitely ok.
I have asked if the Munich , Vienna , Organic Pils can be guaranteed


Hi Jeff
as we advised Mark, the Munich and Caramalt had been sitting in sacks and had absorbed mioisture through a concrete floor during our recent bout of heavy rain.All our wheat , ale , pilsner malts are freshly produced and still in silo.The organic malt is 5 months old and high protein . Please advise if you want to proceed with an amended order .
Cheers


Batz


----------



## Ross

Sounds to me that the damp was present before bagging - as Sean points out, if they had been sat somewhere damp it would be clearly evident on the sack & the plastic liner should be more than sufficient as a barrier...

Until they get something as fundamentaly important as this sorted out, I won't be buying their product. Not worth the hassle IMO to save a few dollars - but will gladly support some market competition once these problems are ironed out - So here's to hoping, nothing but good reports from the Qld order...


----------



## MAH

Ross said:


> the plastic liner should be more than sufficient as a barrier...



Well I have to agree with you Ross. The assertion that the mould was due to absorbing moiture through a concrete floor is a little hard to swallow. For one each bag has a moisture barrier in the form of a platic liner and secondly it's hard to accept that mositure got in _through_ a concrete floor. 

The other thing that doesn't add up is that if the malt had become mouldy due to moisture, you would expect it to have become slack, particularly as most of the affected grains are boken in two and very exposed. The grains I tested were definitely not slack, which would suggest it happened prior to it being dried and kilned. Also the malt is not mouldy as such, but mould stained (if that makes sense).

Something is wrong and I hope Powells find the problem, because I would like to continue supporting them.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## ausdb

MAH said:


> Well I have to agree with you Ross. The assertion that the mould was due to absorbing moiture through a concrete floor is a little hard to swallow. For one each bag has a moisture barrier in the form of a platic liner and secondly it's hard to accept that mositure got in _through_ a concrete floor.



You would be suprised how much moisture is transmitted through a concrete slab, if it wasnt a problem why would cement manufacturers recommend that bags of cement are stored on pallets not just straight on to a concrete slab.

cheers ausdb


----------



## MAH

ausdb said:


> You would be suprised how much moisture is transmitted through a concrete slab



OK you get moisture through a slab, but enough to soak through a double walled paper outer, a plastic inner and to uniformly wet the grain in a 25kg bag to a level suited to the growth of mould?


----------



## Ross

ausdb said:


> MAH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have to agree with you Ross. The assertion that the mould was due to absorbing moiture through a concrete floor is a little hard to swallow. For one each bag has a moisture barrier in the form of a platic liner and secondly it's hard to accept that mositure got in _through_ a concrete floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would be suprised how much moisture is transmitted through a concrete slab, if it wasnt a problem why would cement manufacturers recommend that bags of cement are stored on pallets not just straight on to a concrete slab.
> 
> cheers ausdb
> [post="66327"][/post]​
Click to expand...


ausb,

You would like to think that if moisture is a problem to the product you're selling, then it would be stored in a place where it's protected. If they are storing the grain on concrete without any damp course then it's going to be an ongoing problem. But if the grains were already bagged, as they seem to be suggesting, I don't see how even this would be a problem - with regards to cement bags, they are just paper - no plastic liner - so they would be very acceptable to moisture.

Just one final point - doesn't the grain have a moisture content of over 4% anyway - or am I missing something?


----------



## roach

here is a piccy of a random sample from my stock of powells organic pils

you can see the mould for yourself.

I must stress though that I am more than happy with the other Powells malts I have. Hopefully now that they are aware of the problem Powells can quickly fix it. We need Powells to be around in the longer term and provide a viable, affordable option for HB'ers, as we need competition in the local market and with Powells niche floor malted product it provides a good alternative.


----------



## Sean

I don't have access to a leaky concrete floor, but I do have some empty Powells sacks full of sticks for fire lighting, so I've stood one in a small puddle to see what happens.


----------



## Sean

roach said:


> View attachment 3063
> We need Powells to be around in the longer term and provide a viable, affordable option for HB'ers, as we need competition in the local market and with Powells niche floor malted product it provides a good alternative.
> [post="66339"][/post]​


Absolutely.


----------



## Sean

Sean said:


> I don't have access to a leaky concrete floor, but I do have some empty Powells sacks full of sticks for fire lighting, so I've stood one in a small puddle to see what happens.
> [post="66342"][/post]​


Well, I can now definitively say that moisure can find it's way in, despite the liner (probably through the seems in the floor of the bag).


----------



## roach

Sean said:


> Sean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to a leaky concrete floor, but I do have some empty Powells sacks full of sticks for fire lighting, so I've stood one in a small puddle to see what happens.
> [post="66342"][/post]​
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can now definitively say that moisure can find it's way in, despite the liner (probably through the seems in the floor of the bag).
> [post="66349"][/post]​
Click to expand...

i would be interested to see a side by side comparison with traditional packaging of JW or weyermann for example.

i also think the powells seams are more susceptible to stretching because of the brown paper bag packaging which is not quite as strong as the normal bags. I know that very little force is required to open up the seam at the top of the bag of powells cf JW eg.


----------



## Darren

My guess is that it was contaminated before it went into the bag.
Probably sat around wet for too long and the growth started then.
Once it has started there is no way to stop it.
I reckon that the entire batch of that malt should be re-called and replaced.


----------



## Sean

roach said:


> Sean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have access to a leaky concrete floor, but I do have some empty Powells sacks full of sticks for fire lighting, so I've stood one in a small puddle to see what happens.
> [post="66342"][/post]​
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can now definitively say that moisure can find it's way in, despite the liner (probably through the seems in the floor of the bag).
> [post="66349"][/post]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i would be interested to see a side by side comparison with traditional packaging of JW or weyermann for example.
> 
> i also think the powells seams are more susceptible to stretching because of the brown paper bag packaging which is not quite as strong as the normal bags. I know that very little force is required to open up the seam at the top of the bag of powells cf JW eg.
> [post="66350"][/post]​
Click to expand...

The only JW bag I have around is too badly damaged to be any use as a test, and Fawcetts use a separate polythene bag inside the sack, which one would expect to be perfectly impermiable. I've not bought any Weyerman.



> My guess is that it was contaminated before it went into the bag.
> Probably sat around wet for too long and the growth started then.


It shouldn't be wet at( all after it's been kilned. Why do you think water getting into the storage silos or wherever it's stored bulk), is more plausible than it getting into the sacks? Presumably it's safe to say it wasn't visibly obvious when it was bagged - no-one would stand there and happly bag umpteen tonnes of clearly mouldy grain and not say something.



> I reckon that the entire batch of that malt should be re-called and replaced


Maybe it has been recalled now. Reading between the lines it doesn't sound like they are shifting vast quantities of Munich and Organic, so they probably don't have any other batches to replace it with.


----------



## wee stu

OK, I was finally brave enough to have a rummage throulgh my half bag of Organic Pilsner.

Yes there is some mould there  . 
But, I had to rummage quite hard to find it, and thus far it is only on the broken grains. It is no where near as easy to spot as Roach's example. And definitely no where near as rife as the munich MAH and I were going to split. You did not need to look for it in that bag.

If I had not been deliberately looking for it, sifting 2kg very carefully, I might easily not have noticed it. 

FWIW min came from the bottom of the bag. SteveSA got the top half. Maybe Steve can report on his too. As well as being short in stature I am very myopic too, so maybe I am not the best of judges  

awrabest, stu


----------



## roach

wee stu said:


> OK, I was finally brave enough to have a rummage throulgh my half bag of Organic Pilsner.
> 
> Yes there is some mould there  .
> But, I had to rummage quite hard to find it, and thus far it is only on the broken grains. It is no where near as easy to spot as Roach's example. And definitely no where near as rife as the munich MAH and I were going to split. You did not need to look for it in that bag.
> 
> If I had not been deliberately looking for it, sifting 2kg very carefully, I might easily not have noticed it.
> 
> FWIW min came from the bottom of the bag. SteveSA got the top half. Maybe Steve can report on his too. As well as being short in stature I am very myopic too, so maybe I am not the best of judges
> 
> awrabest, stu
> [post="66378"][/post]​


wee stu is spot on in that if you are not looking for the mouldy grain in amongst a whole bag it would be easy to miss. also the mouldy pieces tended to be those that were already broken, rather than the whole grains. 

i did arrange the grains in the photo to highlight the mouldy ones so AHBers could see the problem. but i still think the mould has gotten worse(ie grown) since I brewed with it a month ago. i also suspect that the bottom of the bag would be worse than the top.


----------



## MAH

roach said:


> wee stu is spot on in that if you are not looking for the mouldy grain in amongst a whole bag it would be easy to miss. also the mouldy pieces tended to be those that were already broken, rather than the whole grains.



Hi Roach, in the bag of Munich that I first discovered it in, it was extremely noticeable. Wee Stu was over and we were splitting the bag in half. As I scooped out the grain it was immediately obvious. It looked just like your photo, with the bluey green stain mostly on the ends of boken grains, but also on whole grains. The sample I took to our recent brew day, was just a random container full and everyone seemed to agree that it was pretty well contaminated.



roach said:


> i also suspect that the bottom of the bag would be worse than the top.



I'd say it would be throughout the bag (if it was due to moisture through the floor), as they would stack the bags flat, not standing on one end.



roach said:


> i also think the powells seams are more susceptible to stretching because of the brown paper bag packaging which is not quite as strong as the normal bags.



Yep, I agree, I did grab a bag by the top and it began to tear along the the stiching. But more robust bags, would add more to the cost.



roach said:


> I must stress though that I am more than happy with the other Powells malts I have. Hopefully now that they are aware of the problem Powells can quickly fix it. We need Powells to be around in the longer term and provide a viable, affordable option for HB'ers, as we need competition in the local market and with Powells niche floor malted product it provides a good alternative.



Spot on Roach. Although this thread has put Powells under the spotlight for some problems we experienced, I would really like to see them succeed and not just from a HBers perspective. If we want quality commercialy available alternatives to mega-swill, brewers need alternatives to mega swill ingredients. A niche supplier like Powells, who take the time to floor malt, should help craft brewers attempting to produce full flavoured ales.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## wee stu

In the bag of Munich it would have taken a blind man *not* to notice it :huh: .

My ale malt looks fine.


----------



## MAH

wee stu said:


> In the bag of Munich it would have taken a blind man *not* to notice it :huh: .



But if he had a taste of the malt he would definitely know some was not right.

Both Wee Stu and I munched on a mouldy grain and it was absolutely foul. The flavour had just penertrated the malt, it had taken it over. It was an extremely strong and lasting foulness.


----------



## Boots

Following on from a conversation I had with Roach here is a beer I might look at brewing for the upcoming state competition.

Category: OMPA (Organic Mouldy Pale Ale)

Ingredients:

5KG's Organic Mouldy Pilsener Malt
0.5 KG's Mouldy Munich Malt
100mls ExitMould Bathroom Cleaner
50g EKG at 60min
50g EKG at 5 min
1 Smack Pack of 1028 London Ale

Mash at 66 degrees, add Exit Mould with strike water.

Mash for 10 minutes (no need to mash for longer, as the grain is already wet and conversion should be almost completed before it leaves the sack)

Extended 90 min boil to make sure all the mould has ample time to be fully converted into the most toxic stuff possible.

If necessary extra ExitMould can be added in secondary - add to taste.

Care should be taken when crushing grains, apparently there are some natural bacteria that can live within grain kernels, we wouldn't want them infecting our beer.

 

Seriously though, I'm heading to Ballarat next week, so I'm tempted to make a small detour to show them some of the mouldy grains. I agree with the general opionions already voiced, and wish Powells all the best at ironing out any possible probs.


----------



## dicko

Boots said:


> Following on from a conversation I had with Roach here is a beer I might look at brewing for the upcoming state competition.
> 
> Category: OMPA (Organic Mouldy Pale Ale)
> 
> Ingredients:
> 
> 5KG's Organic Mouldy Pilsener Malt
> 0.5 KG's Mouldy Munich Malt
> 100mls ExitMould Bathroom Cleaner
> 50g EKG at 60min
> 50g EKG at 5 min
> 1 Smack Pack of 1028 London Ale
> 
> Mash at 66 degrees, add Exit Mould with strike water.
> 
> 
> [post="66509"][/post]​



Hi Boots,

The recipe sounds good  
however I feel that if you substitute the 1028 London Ale for the "Lactobacillus Yeast Stick" that TDA uses at times, the result should be closer to the style.  

:lol: 
Cheers


----------



## sosman

I hope everyone who has got dodgy product has got back to the supplier and explained the situation (I know some have) and arranged for a replacement.

Mouldy grain is unacceptable, how the supplier makes good and also fixes up the problems upstream is an important factor in the overall service levels.


----------



## Boots

Sosman - MAH has let them know about each instance.

The problem with mine and Roach's bag is that it wasn't really picked up till a fair while after the order was delivered. In both our instances they were stored dry, with other grain, etc, but I can totally understand Powells not doing much about our bag considering the delay in notifiying them. Still, we'll see what they say.

In our instance they were told more just so they knew than trying to get a replacement.


----------



## Sean

Boots said:


> Sosman - MAH has let them know about each instance.
> 
> The problem with mine and Roach's bag is that it wasn't really picked up till a fair while after the order was delivered. In both our instances they were stored dry, with other grain, etc, but I can totally understand Powells not doing much about our bag considering the delay in notifiying them. Still, we'll see what they say.
> 
> In our instance they were told more just so they knew than trying to get a replacement.
> [post="66516"][/post]​


Freighting a replacement might be a bit unreasonable, given the costs of freighting a single sack, but refunding the cost of the sack would be a decent gesture. Especially as Powells do seem keen to look after homebrewers and get them on-side. (An attitude that makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. All grain homebrewers are likely to be the sort of people who not only support boutique breweries, but chat to head-brewers about their ingredients.)


----------



## roach

Might give the OMPA recipe a whirl as I have some infected 2565 in stock that would match the malt well :lol: 

As Boots suggested we dont care whether we get a replacement bag or not. Also a refund would nice, but not going to lose sleep over half a bag each either. Reckon I have saved much more than that in buying 3 other bags of Powells malt which are fine(pale, vienna, and wheat)

More important though is how Powells respond more generally to this problem. 

From what I have heard from other peoples experiences Powells provide excellent customer service and genuinely try to do the right thing.


----------



## MAH

Sean said:


> Freighting a replacement might be a bit unreasonable, given the costs of freighting a single sack



Hi Sean

This gets back to my earlier point that mistakes can be extremely costly to remedy, particularly when they relate to the reputation of a business. 



Sean said:


> refunding the cost of the sack would be a decent gesture



In South Australia at least, this wouldn't be considered a decent gesture, it's the minimum requirement under consumer protection law. Basically if goods can't be used for the purpose they were intended for, the supplier is obligated to provide a full refund.

Let's see how good a corporate citizen is. I'm confident they'll prove themselves to be an honourable outfit.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## THE DRUNK ARAB

dicko said:


> [post="66509"][/post]​



Hi Boots,

The recipe sounds good  
however I feel that if you substitute the 1028 London Ale for the "Lactobacillus Yeast Stick" that TDA uses at times, the result should be closer to the style.  

:lol: 
Cheers
[post="66514"][/post]​[/quote]

You bastard dicko. Now everyone will want to use it h34r: !

C&B
TDA


----------



## SteveSA

wee stu said:


> OK, I was finally brave enough to have a rummage throulgh my half bag of Organic Pilsner.
> 
> Yes there is some mould there  .
> But, I had to rummage quite hard to find it, and thus far it is only on the broken grains. It is no where near as easy to spot as Roach's example. And definitely no where near as rife as the munich MAH and I were going to split. You did not need to look for it in that bag.
> 
> If I had not been deliberately looking for it, sifting 2kg very carefully, I might easily not have noticed it.
> 
> FWIW min came from the bottom of the bag. SteveSA got the top half. Maybe Steve can report on his too. As well as being short in stature I am very myopic too, so maybe I am not the best of judges
> 
> awrabest, stu
> [post="66378"][/post]​


Finally got around to checking my half of the organic pilsner... bad news for me too!

It's very difficult to see but there is definitely some mouldy grains in there. Had to look very closely and probably only found half a dozen in a double-hand scoop (you won't find that in your weights and measures books). There's just enough to make me hesitant to use it.

Disappointing really. Let's hope they sort it out.

Steve


----------



## MAH

Well my initial good feelings towards Powells have almost come to an end, and I'm pretty [email protected]& off at them :angry:. The story so far is they had made an offer to replace the mislabled Caramalt, then when I let them know about the mouldy Munich they also offered to replace that. Since then, NOTHING :excl: 

I had been communicating via email with them, but they've simply stopped replying. They haven't contacted to update me on the replacement malt, and when I've let them know that other brewers have found mouldy Organic Pilsner, they haven't bothered to reply to this at all.

I've even offered to send samples of the mislabled malt and the mouldy malt, so they can verify the problem for their own quality assurance. I'm more than happy to demonstrate that I'm not trying to blag free malt from them.

I've emailed Powells this morning and let them know that I'm happy to accept a full-refund for all the unuseable malt (anyone know the consumer affairs law in Victoria).

My initial good experience has been soured and based on this, I personally wouldn't recommend that homebrewers deal directly with Powells. If you want the malt go through a HBS that you feel confident dealing with and who you can trust to meet their obligations if they sell you damaged goods.

As far as I'm concerned at the moment, Powells can go get F^@#& :excl: 

MAH :angry:


----------



## Gulf Brewery

MAH said:


> As far as I'm concerned at the moment, Powells can go get F^@#& :excl:
> 
> MAH :angry:
> [post="67283"][/post]​



Mark

I would send an envelope of the mouldy grains back to the them with a polite but stern letter saying "please fix as this is not fit for sale".

If that doesn't work, then they may not be around in the long term anyway.

Cheers
Pedro


----------



## Batz

Well MAH we have just ordered 34 bags , I hope all is well with it.

Batz


----------



## sosman

Batz - I'm sure you'll be right. MAH has shared his experience but I have had nothing but good service from Powells. It is inexpensive and I am getting great beers from it.


----------



## Batz

I must say I am pleased with there service so far , yet to see the malt

They are sending 3 bags of the Munich and not charging us , if we are happy with it they ask that we forward the cost of the malt.
Fair enough for me

Cost of all the malts we have ordered is nothing less than exellent.

Batz


----------



## Jazman

mah maybe it time to give em a phone call then send a formal letter by snail mail by registed post with a small threat to consumer affairs ????????


----------



## MAH

Batz said:


> They are sending 3 bags of the Munich and not charging us , if we are happy with it they ask that we forward the cost of the malt.
> Fair enough for me



Hi Batz

It's a good deal for you, but this justpisses me off even more. I've actually paid for the Munich malt and I've told them it's not useable, but have only received an empty promise of a replacement bag. It shits me that I'm out of pocket for Munich malt, yet they're prepared to send 3 bags to Queensland without charge.

Monday I'm sending them a letter and a sample of the Munich. I'll request a full refund for the Caramalt, Munich and 2 bags of Organic Pilsner that the other brewers bought.

If I get not luck through this approach then I might track down the relative authority in Victoria that deals with food safety standards and send them a sample of the mouldy malt.

Bottom line is I shouldn't be the one chasing them. I identified the problem, they said they would fix it, but have failed to follow up. That's unacceptable business practices. They will fold if they treat corporate customers with such comtempt. Minimum from Powells should be a few lines giving an update, even if they haven't got around to doing anything.

I was a big enough customer for them to take my money, but not big enough for them to care about when something went wrong :angry: :excl:

MAH


----------



## PhilS

Hello MAH,
When you send the sample back to them of the malts, include a letter giving them notice of two weeks to reply with your request, or you will lodge a complaint with the equivalent of Consumer Affairs.

You need to give this in writing to them and enought time for them to reply. Usually a letter along these lines will be more than enough for them to take you seriously, and honour their promises 

If you have some time available, Consumer affairs (or whatever their new name is) have a template on their website showing how to construct a letter using the correct terms.

Goodluck  

Regards,
Phil


----------



## ozbrewer

im pretty sure its the office of fair traiding in Vic


----------



## MAH

OK fellow brewers, there's no need for me to go down the path of hiring a QC, Powells have come to the party (well partially).

I got a reply to my last email, and to summarise the story, most of their malt is packed in bulk (500kg or 1tonne) so they don't have a huge supply of the 25kg bags. They've just packed some bags and can now send the malt today. 

Why didn't they say there would be a delay due to production when they made the offer to replace the malt? They need to work on their communication.

Now I say they have partially come to the party because a) I paid for Caramalt and Munich malt, and they're replacing it with Ale, and B) becuase they're posting it, they can only send 20kg bags to comply with Australia post requirements. So I've paid $42 for malt and will $31.41 worth of replacement, meaning I'm out of pocket by $10.59. It's not a lot of money, but it's the principle of you should get what you've paid for. BUT this does have to be balanced against the very generous discount they gave on the order, with a 1tonne price break give at 400kg.

Second issue was the organic pilsner and mould on this malt. It was explained that: 
"Organic Barley is subject to both field and storage moulds, "dependant on harvest conditions" - as no chemicals can be used to control mould. While the malting process and especially the kilning process, will de-activate these moulds, the spores will remain visible on the grain. He added that all grain shows visible mould under a microscope, but this is much more evident in late-harvested organic barley."

I'll let you all make up your own minds on the organic pilsner.

*Conclusion*
I reckon it's time to wrap this thread up with my final thoughts on my initial Powells experience.
1. They're a generous company willing to deal with small homebrewer co-op buys, and give a generous price break.

2. They have some production quality issues to work through.

3. They need to improve their communication (in particular the speed of reply), to reduce uncertainty and possible confusion. Main problem here is that they've an email account and take many days to respond. Modern business environments use email for rapid communication and this is the standard expected by most individuals. If you can't use this technology in the commonly expected way, then don't offer the service as it can be generate more ill will, than good will. Just offer phone, fax and snail mail.

4. _*Their malt makes nice beer*_. The mild I made with the ale malt is as good as any other malt I've used. If they improve their service delivery to match the malt (mouldy Munich excluded), then they potentially have a winner. 

Overall I'm going to sit on the fence when comes to Powells, as my initial good will was wiped away by poor after sales service. But as I've said all along these are just my experiences. 

I wish Grant and Suzie Powell the best of luck.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## THE DRUNK ARAB

I know MAH wanted to call and end to this thread but just want to add my view thus far.

I opened my first bag of Powells Ale malt last night and was greeted with more foreign matter than you could poke a mash paddle at. I have purchased Weyermanns, Barret and Burston's, Joe White and AMC malts in bulk previously and they had nowhere near the amount of crap in them if any. :angry: 
I just hope the malt makes a decent batch. <_< 

Here is a photo, the green articles are Bindi's by the looks. :huh: 

C&B
TDA


----------



## SteveSA

I'm posting this here so as not to take the other Powells thread off topic... 

There's no doubt the quality control of Powells has been questionable in the past. The amount of foreign matter (stalk, mould, stones) in the initial purchase by MAH was like nothing I've ever seen.

At the time I was willing to put it down to a relatively new company having teething problems. ie. it's something that we can reasonbly expect to be fixed over time.

Now we all know some bloody good beer has been made from Powells malt and I've nothing against using them. However, I'm curious to know if they are still having the same quality control issue now as they were 6 months ago.

Has anyone ordered recently that can add comment?

Not long to go
Steve


----------



## T.D.

I have noticed a lot of storks and other non-grain matter. But to this date, thankfully, I haven't come across any stones. I shudder to think what that would do to my mill!


----------



## RobW

The storks could be a bit messy going through too


----------



## mikem108

Hopefully the storks aren't mixed with any Pelicans!


----------



## dreamboat

You are right there mikem.... those pelicans are a pita if they get caught up in your mill, and are a possible cause of the poor efficiency that some have reported with this malt. They really do not convert well at all, even with a multi temp or decoction schedule!



dreamboat


----------



## Guest Lurker

Well, I once crushed something about half the size of a stork without any problems, so I reckon my Valley Mill would manage a stork.

http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...08&hl=cockroach


----------



## johnno

> Interesting topic about the efficiency of the Powells malts.
> I started AG in January this year and have used Powells in nearly every recipe.
> I have only made one recipe wholly using JW malts.
> All the other recipe were either 100% Powells or the bulk of the recipe was.
> I have noticed my efficiency to be very low.
> The one recipe using all JW malts was set to 75% eff and I got 72%.
> I have always suspected it was something in my system or something I was doing wrong but am not so sure now.
> I am making an all JW ale this weekend to compare the difference.
> Will be interesting to see the results.
> Having said that I have made some very good tasting beers using Powells but have been constantly shitted off due to the bad efficiency.
> 
> cheers
> johnno



I have pasted this comment here from the other thread as it is more appropriate here.
I get my grain crushed at Grain and Grape and have only asked then to run the grain through once before and did not notice much difference in the efficiency.
Just about to start the brewday with the JW malts so I will post with results later today.

johnno


----------



## johnno

The volume collected in the kettle pre boil is already 6 points higher than it should be.
I have beersmith set to 65% efficiency.
Estimated was 1033.
Actual is 1039.

johnno


----------



## johnno

I ended up boiling a bit less and hitting my target gravity.
All this time I have been using Powells malts I was thinking I was doing something wrong.
Seems for whatever reason the Powells are not working for me and my system.
I will use Powells again for my next ale in a couple of weeks.
This time I will ask Grain and Grape to put it through the mill twice. 
I will use exactly the same grain bill as yesterday.

5.25 kg Pilsner, Malt Craft Export (Joe White) (3.2 EBC) Grain 91.3 % 
0.25 kg Crystal (Joe White) (141.8 EBC) Grain 4.3 % 
0.25 kg Wheat Malt, Malt Craft (Joe White) (3.5 EBC) Grain 4.3 % 

I am not getting the same sugar extraction with the Powells, so some more experimentation is due.

cheers
johnno


----------



## T.D.

Thanks for posting your findings Johnno. So what was your actual efficincy for the Joe White batch?

Next brew I will also mill the grain twice. But this time there's no way I'm hand-cranking the mill!! Almost killed me last time putting 8kg only once through!


----------



## johnno

Well that solves some of the mystery for me.
Looks like I can set efficiency to 75% using JW malts.
Will have to experiment with double crushed Powells malts for a while.
Cant wait to get my mill.

johnno


----------



## dickTed

Can anyone explain why there's such a price difference between JW & Powells?


----------



## Gout

local and buying into the market? Vs a well known

profit margin?

I would no pay more for a new malt thats not proven.... however due to the saving i have stuck by powells and its doing me well. Will be a while untill this silly brewer catches up to the malt quality. if i ever do i may spend more and move to tother malts however that will be a while off

....bed time this 7% coopers copy is killing me


----------

