National Comp & Powels Malts

[warrenlw63]

Jayse.

This is the best the Powells site offers, the last line is a bit of a laugh.

Typical analysis

Moisture Content Extract Colour Kolbach Index D.P.

<3.5% >81% 4.0 6.0 42 - 46 160 - 200
Beer Styles

Ale Malt is used to impart typical, warm mellow flavours to all styles of ales.
Flavour and colour contributions

Ale Malt is produced similarly to Lager Malt, but with higher curing temperatures of 95 105 degrees. These higher kilning temperatures are sufficient to remove DMS and grassy flavours, leaving the malt with a biscuit flavour and a hint of caramel and toffee from the oxygen hetrocyclics.

Ale Malts are often used to balance higher hop levels. :blink: :blink:

Warren -

 

[Joel]

Has anyone bothered to check if the conversion is complete? I haven't used Powells malt yet, but if I was getting unexpectedly low efficiencies I'd do the good ol' iodine conversion test to see what's going on.

 

[AndrewQLD]

I am pretty sure this file is from one of our members so thanks to them.View attachment Powells_Malt_Specs.doc

Powells malts are made from the schooner variety which are lower in diastase (ezymes) than most other malts. This is possibly one of the reasons why efficiency can be a problem. I have found that increasing the mash length to 90 min gave me an efficiency increase from 65% to 70% which I am more than happy with. Also another possible way to increase your eff might be a thicker mash, If the mash is thin the enzymes are more diluted and can take longer to convert the starches to sugars, a thicker mash could help there.

Cheers
Andrew

 

[Samwise Gamgee]

I've had it pointed out to me that if you compare JW malt and Powells Malt the consistency between the two is quite different.

The size of the JW grain is pretty consistant , therefore when crushing you get a uniform crush.

But the Powells Grain had quite a big range of size difference between the individual grains, so when crushing, while you might be crushing majority of the grain well, quite a bit of the smaller grains get through uncrushed.

So i now use extra powell's to boost efficiency back up.

 

[jayse]

Theres nothing in those specs to suggest to me why anyone would need do anything more than a standard length single infusion mash to get the results they would expect, so unlike my first reply, the answer is not in the specs. Now what this may indicate is that this is a typical analysis and some batches vary greatly from this, which would indicate why someone has perfect results with it and some don't, ie they have a different batch. Now we all should know this degree of varriation from batch to batch is pretty much unacceptable and i wouldn't like to say for sure this is the case as i wouldn't imagine the QC at the maltings are anything less than pretty much spot on.
I haven't ever used the malt and am not about to start guessing as to the problem and i certainly am not about to say anything bad about the company when indeed i have no idea about the product at all.

So sorry I can't see any reasons either way why this malt hasn't produced the same results for everyone.

All i could possibly suggest is brewers ask for lot analysis for each batch they buy and see if there is a difference and compare results from other brewers and so forth.

Anyway i don't have any answers other than this is a bit wierd :blink:

Born to booze
Jayse

 

[jayse]

I am pretty sure this file is from one of our members so thanks to them.View attachment 6481

Powells malts are made from the schooner variety which are lower in diastase (ezymes) than most other malts. This is possibly one of the reasons why efficiency can be a problem. I have found that increasing the mash length to 90 min gave me an efficiency increase from 65% to 70% which I am more than happy with. Also another possible way to increase your eff might be a thicker mash, If the mash is thin the enzymes are more diluted and can take longer to convert the starches to sugars, a thicker mash could help there.

Cheers
Andrew

[post="116620"][/post]​

Good points andrew the DP might be were the answer is although the quoted number 160-200 is pretty much were most british style pale ale malts are i believe.

 

[jayse]

I've had it pointed out to me that if you compare JW malt and Powells Malt the consistency between the two is quite different.

The size of the JW grain is pretty consistant , therefore when crushing you get a uniform crush.

But the Powells Grain had quite a big range of size difference between the individual grains, so when crushing, while you might be crushing majority of the grain well, quite a bit of the smaller grains get through uncrushed.

So i now use extra powell's to boost efficiency back up.

[post="116621"][/post]​

this sounds pretty dodgey and i don't beleive any craft brewery is gunna buy the malt unless the homogeneity( the degree of difference is size of kernels) is not pretty much spot on, the size of all the kernels really should be pretty uniform throughout if not i'd suggest there is a fault with the malt and its not acceptable for use. I have no idea if the size really is that big in varriation so i'am not saying powells is no good i'am just saying a big varriation in size is no good irellavant of who it comes from.

Jayse

 

[Samwise Gamgee]

the size difference isn't huge, but when i've done a side by side comparison, I was able to see the difference pretty easily, but this could also be a batch problem.

My thoughts on why this has happened are along the lines of JW essentially takes the best available grain due to being around for a long time, established contracts with farmers etc etc

where as Powell's as a company is relatively new so might not be able to get there hands on the highest quality produce.

I have no data what so ever to back up the above, just speculation, but it could possibly be a contributing factor

 

[Jazzafish]

This is how my Powells experiences go:

First time I used it I had an efficiency around 55%. It has risen from there from using different mash temps. I did the following mash:

50*C for 20 mins
66*C for 60mins
70*C for 20mins

It got an efficiency of 74%. It recently one a comp on powells ale malt, so I guess it isn't too bad!

My recent ale was a Powells Pilsner base. It had an efficency of 71% after an hour at 67*C.

 

[altstart]

:beer:
In the last Qld bulk buy I purchased 3 sacks of Powells pale malt. I have recently motorised my own mill Crankandstein 3 roller.I have brewed two beers with the Powells pale malt crushed through my new mill. My efficiency has risen slightly from 75% to 80% with both beers. I do not know if this is due to a better crush or to the new mill. I am now drinking the first of these beers and it is very nice I guess the only way to know for sure is to crush grains from my local HBS and keep tabs on the efficiency I achieve with their Grain.
Cheers Altstart.

 

[timmy]

I did an oatmeal stout with 4kgs of powells ale and 2 of pils. Ran through the mill 3 times and nudged 78%. all the specialty grains were JW,

The third run really made the difference, I basically pulverised the buggery out of it. Still not sure if the extra effort at the mill is worth the $12 saving for a 25kg sack.

editart of the specialty grains were Uncle tobys

 

[warrenlw63]

Brewed yesterday and got far better results this time.

Efficiency was up around the 74% mark (as compared to 50% last time). Here's what changed in relevant order;

Implemented a 40 degree rest (thanks Sam) with a LG ratio of 1:1. Infused with 8 litres of boiling water to bring the temp up to 66c which gave me a sacc rest with a LG ratio of 2.5:1. As per AndrewQld's (Thanks Andrew) advice. My usual LG is 3.1.

Used a finer crush. There was a fair bit of flour in the crush but not even a hint of a stuck sparge. Please note this was my first crush I've done myself. Have been getting the LHBS to do it for the last 8 years. Bit lazy of me yes.

After 8 years of fly sparging this only about my 5th or 6th beer that I've batch sparged. Shawn (Gough) advised me that I could possibly be adding the sparge water too cold to my second drain, was adding 76 degree water (fly sparger's mentality :lol: ). Added the water at 85c to get a grainbed temp of 75 degrees and the second drain would most likely have yielded more sugars. (Thanks Shawn).

Result was my target gravity was spot on.

Hope this helps anybody else using Powells and are achieving poor efficiency. :beerbang:

Warren -

 

[bindi]

Implemented a 40 degree rest (thanks Sam) with a LG ratio of 1:1.

interesting <_< I have used a rest for the last 5 or 6 brews of between 50-53c, can anyone [sam] "please explain" [as per Hanson ] the thinking behind this?
Thanks.

 

[warrenlw63]

Bindi.

Not sure of the total reason for this step. Was recommended to me and it worked. I just find that Powells malts in a single temp rest was only giving me efficiency in the 55% region and there are others experiencing the same thing. I'm just wondering if Powells may be undermodified by most standards.

This is the best I could find. It's written by the late Dr. George Fix;

The value of the rest at 40C can not be understated. The rise in SG in this mash is almost 3 times faster than what I get when this rest is omitted. The final mash yield is ~20 % higher. Clearly there is a lot of favorable activity going on including preparation of the enzyme systems, beta glucanase activity, and highly favorable enzymatically assisted grain liquefaction.

This wort clears up very quickly (for European malts), and after ~2 gals. of recirculation it will change from a milkly turbidity to a moderate see through clarity. The 1st wort is then run into the kettle until 1 inch of liquid covers the grain surface. At this point sparging is started with the inflow and outflow rates adjusted to ~1/3 gals/min. It is of course very important to maintain the liquid cover of the grain bed. After ~30 mins. the sparge water is depleted, and the outflow is increased to ~1 gal/min. The following is typical data at kettle full:

Warren -

 

[AndrewQLD]

Interesting stuff Warren, I have noticed with the powells that my runoff is cloudy and never really becomes clear, at least not as clear as when I use other malts, did you notice this before you started doing the 40c rest as well ?

Cheers
Andrew

 

[warrenlw63]

Andrew.

Yep, you're right. Previous experiences with Powells was a rather hazy runoff and finished beer. Even though my previous 2 beers were dark ales. You could still notice the haze when the beer is held up to the light.

Yesterday was the first time I'd tried the 40 degree rest and the wort cleared beautifully after about 4 litres of recirculation. Usually I see fine bits (with any malt) running through the clear racking hose. This time there was virtually nothing. I'm wondering if this rest may clear up a few of the finer bits that get through.

I've often wondered with a single rest how much unconverted starch may be trapped in the odd clump that gets unnoticed. :unsure:

I'd say if you can give it a try just to see what you think more than anything. I found it nowhere near as hard as I first thought.

Warren -

 

[bindi]

Interesting stuff Warren, I have noticed with the powells that my runoff is cloudy and never really becomes clear, at least not as clear as when I use other malts, did you notice this before you started doing the 40c rest as well ?

Cheers
Andrew

[post="117823"][/post]​

Andrew I have noticed that my runoff is now very clear after using a rest at 50-53c for 30min and mash at [now thanks to tony] 68c, was mashing at 63-66 did not think it would make a diffrence but it has .
Read the 53c rest in one of my many brewing books <_< and have been using this rest since.

 

[johnno]

I've only ever done single infusion with these malts but have had very clear beer all the time.
Even yesterdays American brown dropped into the fermenter very clear.
Strange.

johnno

 

[Stuster]

My beers have also been very clear with Powells. Terrible efficiency though, in the low 50s. So may try a rest at 40 (or 53?). How long were your rests?

 

[warrenlw63]

Stuster.

My rest was 40 degrees @ 30 mins.

Warren -