# B&b Galaxy Malt Specs



## Crispy (16/7/04)

Just wondering if anyone knew the specs for this malt, in particular the batch that Darren was flogging off.


Cheers,

Crispy


----------



## chiller (16/7/04)

The specs I have for mine -- same source 1.037 and colour 3 SRM

Steve


----------



## Crispy (16/7/04)

Thanks, Chiller.


----------



## Darren (16/7/04)

chiller said:


> The specs I have for mine -- same source 1.037 and colour 3 SRM
> 
> Steve


 Howdy Crispy,
I just went to look for the spec sheets. They are on the work computer so i couldn't find then.
Chillers specs look good to me
cheers
Darren


----------



## wessmith (17/7/04)

The specs for the last batch of Galaxy we had when we used to stock the product were:
Moisture 4.2%
Extract Fine Grind 81% (313) (1.048)
Colour EBC 3.6
Total nitrogen 1.62% (10.1%)
Kolbach Index 43 (degree of modification
Diastatic Power 278 WK

I have put the apprropriate conversions in brackets.

You will note that none of these figures gels with the data Steve supplied. Galaxy is very consistent product given it is supplied to a major Japanese brewery and I doubt the specs would have varied by the degree apparent from the above. In any event, the quoted SRM (Lovibond) of 3 equals 6.5 EBC and there is no way a pale malt like Galaxy would be this high in colour. It may be worth asking your suppliers for an actual copy of the maltsters Certificate of Analysis - that way any off the cuff conversion (from EBC to SRM) errors will be averted.

Wes.


----------



## Darren (17/7/04)

wessmith said:


> It may be worth asking your suppliers for an actual copy of the maltsters Certificate of Analysis - that way any off the cuff conversion (from EBC to SRM) errors will be averted.


 Crispy,
I have the cert. of analysisn at work. I can send it to you on monday morning. 
It is worth noting though, on the HB scale NO lab spec will apply to your system, given vastly different efficiencies, caramelisation (burner type, boil time, clarity). 
As Wes said the batch to batch vatiation of Galaxy is very tight so I am sure his numbers are correct.
Darren


----------



## wessmith (17/7/04)

Darren said:


> It is worth noting though, on the HB scale NO lab spec will apply to your system, given vastly different efficiencies, caramelisation (burner type, boil time, clarity).


 Darren, not sure I understand your quoted comments - the Certificate of Analysis applies soley to the malt as produced and many of the basic paparmeters - colour, extract, protein levels and distatic power ALL have a bearing on how a beer is brewed, even at the HB level. In fact you need most of these parameters to enter into Promash/Beersmith to get a proper recipe result.

The parameters you mention ie efficiencies, caramelisation etc, are all factors controlled by the brewer and will have been based on the original malt spec.

Wes.


----------



## Crispy (17/7/04)

Thanks for all the info guys,

Yes needed it for Promash,

If you have those specs handy Darren, that would be great if you could forward then to me.

Cheers

Crispy


----------



## Darren (17/7/04)

wessmith said:


> Darren said:
> 
> 
> > It is worth noting though, on the HB scale NO lab spec will apply to your system, given vastly different efficiencies, caramelisation (burner type, boil time, clarity).
> ...


 Hi again Wes,
I am sure you are well aware that you are overstating the importance of COA to the homebrewer but I will reply anyhow.
EBC refers to the colour of resultant wort. This doesnot take into account the darkening that occurs due to boiling. So if I boil full-boar for 90 minutes my wort will be significantly darker than yours if you boil gently for 1 hour. 
Also on the colour of the finished beer. Many other factors such a particles in suspension will also change the observed colour.
Extract potential: For starters, homebrewers are not renowed for weighing their malts all that accurately. That will put all the extract potential data on the COA out the window. Well of course extract is important but again to the homebrewer is just a number. As you are well aware some claim enormous efficiencies >100% from their mash. Others will quote a conservative 70%. 
Assuming people are using the same malts these differences must be at the efficiency level of their system. Now if maltsters are going to compete in the industry all malts must have high diastatic activity. A glance in promash shows very little difference between different pale malts in extract efficiency. This suggests that one could use ANY pale malt in Promash and be within the margin of error for their system. Finally on diastatic activity it is surely time dependant. Longer mash more sugar. Also, lab analysis is very small volume, malt is cracked to a powder. The test is over in about 15 minutes.
It is also tested shorlty after malting. Enzymes are readily labile and will naturally decrease over months depending on storage conditions. So the DA will not be the same as stated on the spec sheet. It will be LESS.
On the HB scale if you are slightly up or down it is easy to simply add a bit of extra water or boil for a bit longer to reach your desired gravities. It is not feasable when you are doing 100000 litre batches. This is why it is unimportant for HB but extremely important for breweries.
For what it is worth I do own promash.I have made about 120 (65 litre) all grain batches. Probably about 70 of those were made entirely with domestic malts.
I have never bothered to add the specs for the aussie malts but have simply used the defaults.
I nearly always hit my gravities, pale ales are "pale". 

Sometimes I think people try to make the process more confusing than it actually is.

Why would a HBer want to know the nitrogen level of their malt? 
(Darren stuck at home baby-sitting a 4 month-old baby)
cheers


----------



## wessmith (17/7/04)

Darren Mate, dont where your getting your info from but you are just a little wide of the mark. You seem to be "looking back" into the brewing process from the finished wort whereas all the spec stuff is just basic building blocks.

"ECB colour refers to the colour of the resultant wort"
First up the EBC (or Lovibond or SRM) colour of a malt is the colour of that particular malt as determined by the malting process - not after a batch of wort has been boiled in the brewing process. It IS a standardised lab test and Yep, it is done on a mashed lab sample with a standard dilution. It is the starting point for building a beer of a certain colour. What the brewer does in the kettle and beyond has little to do with the original EBC colour and yes, the wort will be darker than the original malt.

"Extract Potential"
This is the maximum available extract from a particular malt. It will depend on the malting process, the strain of grain used, the season etc etc. Once again, what the brewer does in weighing the malt, fineness of crush, mashing cycles etc. is beyond the control of the maltster. BTW extract potential does not mean all the resultant wort is fully fermentable. With some crystal malts for instance (Carapils and Caramalt for example) the name of the game has been to add non-fermentable body to the wort. Oh yeh, the >100% brigade - their wild efficiency claims are nothing but a load of codswollop - or a lack of understanding of extract potential.... Commercial brewers would be smiling if they could achieve such magic numbers!

"Diastatic Power"
You are correct in stating that most Aussie pales have good DPs usually in the 250 to 300WK range. There is one notable exception where a pale malt for a major local brewer will be nearer 200. When we look at the English malts there is a very different situation. Floor malted ale malts are typically 150 maximum and do need to be mashed longer. Even a new HB masher will need to know this and adjust times to compensate. BTW your assertion that DP will reduce over time is not borne out in practice. We periodically re-analyse malts to check things like this and have never found any deviation that would fall outside normal analytical tolerances.

You see Darren, the malt world has moved on a fair degree from where it was 4 or 5 years ago. Used to be that all we could get was a "pale" of unknown spec or a schooner malt (whatever that might have been) or a Franklin. They all performed about the same and frankly produced the same tasting beer. Then we started to bring in the German and English malts and found very quickly that mashers in the HB market had to be re-educated to handle the plumper grains, lower DP and in some cases the much stronger flavours of the malts. Then came the newer Aussie malts like Galaxy, Export pilsner, Traditional Ale, Vienna etc. Once again we had to ensure that people understood what the differences were. That is why we put a lot of effort into making sure our wholesalers and retailers know what the malt characteristics are and how best to use them. It is also why I personally went to a lot of effort to get all the Australian available malts incorporated into Promash. This included the imports as well and enabled many errors in the standard malt database to be corrected. If all that is trying to make the process more confusing, I aplogise because we thought it would simplify things. 

There are also a new group of mash brewers emerging who now demand to know the specs of their malt and are conversant with the key malt parameters - I would respond to several every week on technical related questions. 

And there are plenty who want to know the nitrogen (protein) levels of a particular malt so they can decide on an appropriate mash or decoction program for their beer.

Time has moved on and so must I. Hope this has been helpful.

Wes.


----------



## chiller (17/7/04)

Just had a quick read back through some posts on this topic.

Well a lot seems to happen when you spend the day brewing and not at the computer.

I "think" I may have had finger trouble becouse I've checked the malt colour as ebc in my software and it is 4 "EBC". My fault I think.

SRM -- EBC ...... It's only colour  


So what are the basic specs for this grain 4 EBC seems quite a pale malt?

Steve


----------



## warrenlw63 (18/7/04)

wessmith said:


> It is also why I personally went to a lot of effort to get all the Australian available malts incorporated into Promash.


 Hear, Hear Wes!

Getting Oz malt specs into ProMash was great! I actually attempted keying them all in myself. Would have taken me 50 years the way I was going.

Thanks for doing that, much appreciated.

BTW How did your session at the Goat go???

Warren -


----------



## Darren (18/7/04)

warrenlw63 said:


> wessmith said:
> 
> 
> > It is also why I personally went to a lot of effort to get all the Australian available malts incorporated into Promash.
> ...


 Hi Warren,
Bear in ming that all the stats will change from batch to batch so anything you enter one batch will be different to the next batch. If what Wes says is correct you will need to acquire and key in the spec sheets everytime you use a new batch of malt.
Darren


----------



## Darren (18/7/04)

wessmith said:


> There are also a new group of mash brewers emerging who now demand to know the specs of their malt and are conversant with the key malt parameters - I would respond to several every week on technical related questions.
> 
> 
> Time has moved on and so must I. Hope this has been helpful.
> ...


 {Darren Mate, dont where your getting your info from but you are just a little wide of the mark. }

Wes, I have read Brewing (Lewis and Young) and have also worked in biochemistry and microbiology labs for more than twenty years so I do have an understanding of enzyme activites and laboratory procedures.

{First up the EBC (or Lovibond or SRM) colour of a malt is the colour of that particular malt as determined by the malting process - not after a batch of wort has been boiled in the brewing process. It IS a standardised lab test and Yep, it is done on a mashed lab sample with a standard dilution.}

I agree. I was trying to point out that the colour of a finished beer could be different than expected due to many reasons other than the small discrepancy in colour that chiller quoted.

{"Extract Potential"
This is the maximum available extract from a particular malt. It will depend on the malting process, the strain of grain used, the season etc etc. Once again, what the brewer does in weighing the malt, fineness of crush, mashing cycles etc. is beyond the control of the maltster.}

I agree. The large brewery has tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment to ensure they crush, mash and lauter with the same accuracy to retrieve all of that potential sugar. Homebrewers will usually be up of down a couple of points. 
I maintain that extract potential doesn't really mean much to the Hbrewer.

{BTW extract potential does not mean all the resultant wort is fully fermentable.}

Obviously, otherwise the beer would finish at a FG of 1.000 or lower.

{With some crystal malts for instance (Carapils and Caramalt for example) the name of the game has been to add non-fermentable body to the wort. }

Yet this info is not supplied on the spec sheet! Again it is trial and error for the Hbrewer. Given the differences in attenuation capabilities of yeast strains the "non-fermentabilty" of wort will obviously change dependent entirely on the yeast strain of choice. If for example you ferment with a wine or champagne yeast the wort will be almost be completely fermentable.

{"Diastatic Power"
You are correct in stating that most Aussie pales have good DPs usually in the 250 to 300WK range. There is one notable exception where a pale malt for a major local brewer will be nearer 200. When we look at the English malts there is a very different situation. Floor malted ale malts are typically 150 maximum and do need to be mashed longer. Even a new HB masher will need to know this and adjust times to compensate. BTW your assertion that DP will reduce over time is not borne out in practice. }

Here you are quoting a number and unit for which a homebrewer would generally have no handle on the meaning of. Is 300 really much higher than 150. Sure it is twice, but in biological systems a two-fold increase is not generally seen to be significant. I have used bith Euro and Aussie malts. I have always mashed for about an hour to 1.5 hours.

{BTW your assertion that DP will reduce over time is not borne out in practice. We periodically re-analyse malts to check things like this and have never found any deviation that would fall outside normal analytical tolerances.}

I will take your word for it. Quite interesting actually. Suggests to me that the enzyme activity is in excess of available substrate. Therefore it would be difficult to show a decrease. Mega breweries want high diastatic activity so they can get high through-put of beer. After all time is money etc.
Generally doesn't apply to the homebrewer though, who have no way to or don't measure complete conversion.

{You see Darren, the malt world has moved on a fair degree from where it was 4 or 5 years ago. Used to be that all we could get was a "pale" of unknown spec or a schooner malt (whatever that might have been) or a Franklin. They all performed about the same and frankly produced the same tasting beer. Then we started to bring in the German and English malts and found very quickly that mashers in the HB market had to be re-educated to handle the plumper grains, lower DP and in some cases the much stronger flavours of the malts. }

All of these malts were available 5 years ago. The only difference i can see to the homebrewer is that Euro malts have become more competetively priced than the local malt! 

{It is also why I personally went to a lot of effort to get all the Australian available malts incorporated into Promash. This included the imports as well and enabled many errors in the standard malt database to be corrected. If all that is trying to make the process more confusing, I aplogise because we thought it would simplify things.}

An applaudable effort on your part Wes, Well done! Gives the brewer a feel that they have some control over these parameters. 

{There are also a new group of mash brewers emerging who now demand to know the specs of their malt and are conversant with the key malt parameters - I would respond to several every week on technical related questions.}

Brewing enthusiasm is great and I love open debate. In the end though it is the mega brewery who decides on the profile of a given malt. Knowledge of specs doesn't necessarily make good beer unless the whole process is good.
Brewing is 20/80. That is, 20% of the process causes 80% of the problems. Fix those 20 % and you will make good beer.


----------



## wessmith (19/7/04)

Darren, you say "all of these malts were available 5 years ago" - Well, just - I introduced the first Bairds malts to Australia in December 1999, added Barretts Pale and wheat malts in mid 2000 and Weyermann in mid 2001. Why? I had become so bloody frustrated at the lack of any decent range of base and specialty malts and decided to do something about it. Today we continue to import Weyermann, Thomas Fawcett, Hoepfner and Rhoen products as well as offering the increasing range of Joe White malts.

And it isnt the "megabreweries" that determine the malt profiles for these companies. Thomas Fawcett for example, primarily service the UK and US micro market and Weyermann is a big supplier to the US micro market. 

Here in Australia we are fortunate in having a partner like Joe White who operate a specialty malt division in Ballarat that is able to supply to our requirements. Export Pilsner is a genuine Pilsner malt supplied to a large European brewer for 100% malt beers - a rare thing in commercial brewing these days. Traditional Ale malt was developed for us by Joe White and in fact, Malt Craft is the sole customer. Produced in 60 tonne batches, this malt has been malted to develop not just good colour but also a rich malt profile. Our new Vienna malt, "Wedouree Gold" will deliver a golden wort with full malt character and the ability to further develop more maltiness (melanoidins) in the kettle. Have a test brew on tap at the moment brewed from 100% Wendouree Gold and it is VERY nice. And I can tell you there is no way a megabrewery would be using Vienna or Trad Ale malts in their beers.

Dont understand your comment about about imported malts becoming more competitive than local malts. Certainly not the case in our markets - Joe White base and specialty malts are WAY cheaper at the commercial level. Maybe you have been shopping in the wrong store?

Which brings me to a comment about this forum - I too like the free exchange of information and one of the great things about AHB is the open informal nature of the posts. I like the fact there are many new to the hobby and also the fact that the posts are not dominated by any particular individuals as is the case with other local and overseas forums.

I gotto go,

Wes.


----------



## Guest Lurker (19/7/04)

[/QUOTE]I like the fact there are many new to the hobby and also the fact that the posts are not dominated by any particular individuals as is the case with other local and overseas forums.


> Yeah, its great to have a forum where you can read an exchange like that above and make your own decision about what to believe. Rather than one poster being perceived as having ownership of the forum and always being right.
> 
> SHOUT
> Simon


----------



## GOLIATH (19/7/04)

Tempering all information of course with the credibility of it's source!
It's great to see two highly knowlegable individuals have a discussion without personal chest beating. We've all seen that before with the result being that nobody learns anything.

Another reason why it's important not to get TOO specific as there are many variables and what works for one may not work for another.

I remember about 3-4 years ago when the english floor malted grains became available and the level of complaint that ensued from otherwise knowlegable brewers that did not know how to mash with these grains.

Some of course succeeded with stunning results, many didn't have the knowlege to mash these grains however and had spectacular failures.

As an example, I have had exceptional results with 30 minute single temp mashes and had awful results using the same process with different malt. 

There is no one way! As Andrew Schultz said to me when I met him. "Dave, stop brewing from instructions and start brewing from principles" He was right. 

There would appear from my perspective (whatever that's worth) that too many of us brewers can't see the wood for the trees because we are expecting a computer program or other such thing, or an opinion in a book to make our brewing decision for us. I suppose the point is, learn the principles first, and use these other things as tools.

There is no point purchasing cheap this or cheap that, if you don't know the fundamentals, and that, my freinds, is where you need brewshops, surviving, being prosperous and competitive to advance the craft.

I'll get off my soapbox now
Regards
Dave


----------



## tangent (9/11/05)

As fascinating as this discussion has been (and it's opened up another bloody iceburg of brewing that I'll have to get around to one day <sigh>)

Can anyone please tell me what sort of FLAVOUR we can expect from a Galaxy malt?


Cheers


----------

