Powell's Malts

[AndrewQLD]

30 Degrees is an acid rest... 40 degrees has been deemed a b-glucan rest.

Warren -

According to Palmer, mash temps between 30c and 51c are essentially an acid rest as seen here acid rest.

The protein rest temp starts at 46c to 57c with the optimum temp being around 52c protein rest.

Warren is it possible that an extended acid rest could cause the foam stability of your beer to be compromised, have you tried the rest at 53c to see if it makes any difference?

Cheers
Andrew

 

[warrenlw63]

Nah, never bothered Andrew.

Sort of a bit "over" Powells ATM. Nothing wrong with it as such just prefer the continental malts more.

However you're right. I'm suspecting I cleaved a few proteins too many with the 40 degree rest. Beers come out OK. Just a bit too dry for what I was wanting.

Warren -

 

[Millet Man]

While it pushed the efficiency of Powells up to 75% it seemed to also create a very dry beer that struggled to hold a head for any length of time (I used a 40 degree rest for 15-20 mins). h34r:

As I essentially work with undermodified malts (must talk to the maltster about that ) I have found a 20 minute beta glucan rest at 40C gives much better efficiency. For the protein rest I was doing 20 minutes at 50C but was getting very poor head retention, on advice from GLS I moved my protein rest to 55C and now get great head.

Cheers, Andrew.

 

[bindi]

And more <_<

And yet more e-mails

Evan

> EE> Ah, yes, but Maris Otter has always been known to give good malt
> very easily. The problem is that it does not give economic grain yields.
> Many UK brewers
> would be happy using it today apparently. Clipper is somewhat the same
> (easy to malt)
> but its level of > extract is poor by modern standards. <<<<<<

Agree, that what i have read. Its a great floor malting variety, but farm
gate yield is poorer than modern varieties, and its not as disease resistant
either.


>>>>> SO what we are probably seeing is a variety effect rather than a
>>>>> technological effect. <<<<<

There is a thought. We get told by the big malting houses that varieties
have little affect on overall "maltability" of the grain, (different to what
is produced). So what we may have here is a degree of proof (not the right
word) if you like that varieties can play a part, at least in floor malting
verses "forced air" malted barley.

MOST INTERESTING. More, this could be an insight where some brewers believe
floor malted barley has a overall better flavour than modern versions. Is it
the method, OR, is it the variety used.



>>>>> However with the right feedback, it is likely that Grant will be able
>>>>> to push his malts in a the right direction. <<<

Thats the aim of this, to sort out the bugs, so everyone benefits.


>
>>>>> EE> No I was thinking of using a programmed mash although you could
>>>>> use
> a decoction mash to achieve the same ends.<<<<<<

Got it, your talking about a Step Mash. My mistake.



>>>> All current Australian varieties have been bred and accredited malting
> based on airflow through the bed. They were not bred for floor maltings.
> Perhaps Maris Otter was - it is a very old variety.<<<<<

Well we have some Marris Otter coming now, so that should help shed some
light.



>>>>> EE> I would expect not so much on the brewing efficiency but on the
> fermentability of the wort produced. However, this will impact upon the
> mouth feel and how the
> beer ferments. Yes, some European malt and some JWM malt for comparison
> would be useful.<<<<<

What we could uncover here is some area of research that may require more
research. Isn't there some correlation on brewhouse efficency and
fermentability (per a set mash temp and regime). I mean isn't the profile of
what you extract, regardless of brewhouse efficency, relatibvely constant?



> EE> More the inference is targeted at staling. Aging is of course part
> of the home
> brewing process.<<<<<

Not wrong there. Its something Grant may have to realise, if he targets the
smaller end of the market. Most of these brewers DO store their beers much
longer than commercial brewers. So your right, avoiding staling compounds as
long as possible is a big worry of brewers in this market. Rootlets ARE not
desirable in that regard.


Shout'
Graham

:blink:

 

[Batz]

Results

Guys

looking at the data shows a couple of things that Evan has pointed out already.

A minor problem seems to be consistancy. Results are a little over the place, which shows what we have discussed on forums before, that batch to batch consistancy may be a problem.

But that to me is minor compared to the overall low alpha amlyase and enzymic strength of the malt. Now low enzymic strength is easy to work arround in a sense. Look at myself who uses on 40% malt and 60% wheat flour, and yet I can convert it fully. But this does require some manipulation of the enzymes to utilise the weaker concentration.

And many brewer have solved this problem with this malt, by grinding finer, closer to flour. Of course this makes sense, making the starch more easily exposed and easier to convert in this form. I certainly would think using this malt as Evan suggests, at a temp favouring more alpha emzymic activity makes sense. One could also do a decoction mash schedule, that would boost its performance for those who dont want to grind it so fine.

I find it even more interesting the possibility the Kolback index - the degree of protein modification and enzymic strength MAY be lower than other malts. Combine this with the fact that many brewers have to grind the malt much finer, suggest to me that the malting process may be not allowing the malt to fully convert. I am speculatiing the protein matric arround the starch granules (Picture an aero bar) may not be broken down sufficently to allow better water saturation (ie water absorption), and enzymic access of the starch.

This would expalin also why grinding of the malt finer is giving better results, as its physically breaking down this barrier. Also as Evan suggests, the need for a protein rest seems extremely benefical.

So it looks like a finer grind is preferred, to compensate the lower enzymic strength, and a protein rest for those who may not want a finer grind. A decoction mash would be the ideal solution. As per mash schedules. it seems the drop infused one temp high 60'sC drop is not the best. Perhaps the step mash many use - 62C alpha rest 20 minutes (alpha rest), raising to 72C for 20 minutes (full conversion), and mashout 76C (20 minutes, may be a better option.

I personally see a combined glutenase/protein rest at 50C for 30 minutes as a compromise maybe if you want a single high 60's mash temp, to use both enzymes to break down the matric arround the starch.

I have further thoughts on WHY??? this is occuring, but lets stick to one thread at the moment. that can come later.

Shout
Graham L Sanders

 

[Batz]

From G Sanders






G'day All

Well I must admit the silence has been deafening. People must be content with our findings. I have been quiet with other committments, BUT if all have been said and done, all this can go public in my mind.

I thank Dr Evans and Grant Powells for being part of this. I wont subject them to the wider craftbrewing world.

I think we can summarise it like this

1. Powells malts is a floor malted barley that on all accounts produces a great product for the craftbrewer. Performance is well on a par with other malts, including traditional commercial floor malted barley

2. Powells malts have a simlar varability in their enzymic strength to other commercial malsters, batch to batch.

3. Powells malts enzymic strength is lower in general than commercial examples.

4. So the varability in enzymic strength becomes more noticable in mashing if its at the lower end. And that can come thru noticable if you have such a batch for brewing.

5. To get a similar efficency to other commercail examples, the brewer may have to consider a slight modifcation to their brewing process.

6. Mashing procedures that allow more access to the starch, and better utilisation of the enzymes, and break the protein matrix further down are beneficial, such as an extra fine crush, extended protein rest, or a decoction mash. ie mashing procedures for less modifed malts

7. The cause of the lower enzymic strength is unknown, but two possibilities are lower than average airation due to floor malting, and/or the varieties of barley Powells select for malting. Barley varieties do perform differently in the malting house.

8. There is a case to suggest varieties selected over the years for floor malting, like marris otter, are able to compensate for lower airation in the floor malting process, thus giving a higher enzymic strength to other barley varieties malted this way.

9. deeper analysis is warrented by everyone.

10. Craftbrewers have the opportunity to contribute.


Hows this as a summary for the world.

Shout
Graham L Sanders




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 20/09/2006