Unmalted Wheat And Barley - I Dont Get It.

[mondestrunken]

If you can use unmalted grains then why bother malting?

A question I've been meaning to ask for some time now:

It's my understanding that pale malt (6-row especially) has more than enough enzymes to convert itself as well as other unmalted grains. (In contrast something like Munich/Vienna malt, according to Palmer, has just enough enzymes to convert itself.) So why is a standard grain bill in a profit-maximising brewery (i.e. practically every commercial brewery) not something like 80% pale malt, 20% unmalted barley? Surely unmalted barley must be substantially cheaper than malted barley.

Like the OP (only 5 years later!) I'm trying to get a better understanding of unmalted grains and why/when/how you use them, rather than just putting them in because the recipe says so.

Cheers

 

[Not For Horses]

It has a lot to do with the amount and the type of proteins. During malting, a grain undergoes starch modification as well as protein modification. Some of the long chain proteins are broken down to form amino acids which are consumed both in the kilning process and also by the yeast.
Some proteins also end up in the rootlets which are removed following the kilning.
Using unmalted grains leaves all those proteins in place. Some of these add to mouthfeel and head retention (great in stout for example) but others contribute to haze. Not so good in megaswill.
I think some can cause flavour instability too as longer chain proteins break down during aging.
They also have different flavours. Raw grains taste, for want of a better word, grainy. Go figure.
I'd thoroughly recomend getting some raw grain to eat to better understand the flavours.

 

[Bribie G]

Mondestrucken, you got it in one when you said "six row".

That was the original USA barley and when they started making modern lagers in the middle of the 19th century the only way they could make anything clear and drinkable out of the malt made from six row barley was to use large quantities of rice or maize. This diluted and used up excess proteins that would cause persistent hazes. Some of those beers were over 50% unmalted grains, and in the case of favourites such as Budweiser they still use heaps of rice, not because they need to do so with modern malts but that's just, well, the way that Bud tastes. They own rice farms in Louisiana.

In the UK in the 19th century, artificial fertilisers came into use, particularly after the invention of the Haber Process if you remember your grade 11 Chemistry. This allowed massive crops of grains in particular but barley strains were turning out too high in protein and brewers were getting persistent hazes, not just chill haze (didn't chill beer back then). So use of maize became common to use up extra proteins and enzymes, and was still happening with Fullers of London until recently and still common in many Euro lagers such as Stella.

In Australia during the 20th century we were blessed :unsure: with cheap sugar. Overseas, cane sugar was very expensive until temperate climate beet farming became widespread in the 1950s. As Aussie barley farms were inland but the sugar refineries and breweries were along the coast, guess what happened here.

 

[pyrosx]

Two history lessons in one - necro-thread AND history of regional adjunct usage. I just learnt stuff!

One question I have after reading the whole thread: someone mentioned a "tax via malt percentage", which, apparently lead to guinness' malt bill. Is there any truth to that?

 

[mondestrunken]

Thanks Not For Horses & Bribie G for your very informative replies!

From what you have written Bribie, you actually need umalted adjuncts when using 6-row? Interesting.

I'd thoroughly recomend getting some raw grain to eat to better understand the flavours.

It's always a good idea to taste ingredients in this way... And yes pearl barley soup/stew is not a great meal in my opinion - it's certainly less tasty than beer! :lol:

Another question on unmalted grains: is there a resource for identifying the names of unmalted grains? (In particular here I'm thinking of Australian/US translations, e.g. what the heck is the Australian equivalent of "grits"? and/or what's the difference between rolled oats, flaked oats, steel-cut oats, etc. etc.)

Thanks & Cheers.

 

[klangers]

The big industrial boys making their swill lager sometimes get less than 30% of the fermentables from malt (obviously varies recipe to recipe). The rest is liquid sugar.

They also add any extra enzymes they need from isolated enzymes directly to the mash (or fermenter sometimes for various reasons). This affords them very consistently high brewhouse efficiency as it gives them the ability to compensate for malt variations.

 

[dent]

So use of maize became common to use up extra proteins

You say "use up" but wouldn't "dilute" be more accurate?

get less than 30% of the fermentables from malt

I find that hard to believe - I brewed once (as a challenge) a pale lager with 50% white sugar as fermentables. I put a lot of work into the fermentation to make sure it was spot on. It was the most swillingest of swill beer - if I'm stuck drinking something carlton at the pub it brings me right back to that brew - but really I don't see how they could push it any further than that. I'd say 70% malt would be closer to the mark, but I don't have any data to back that up.

Only other thing I have to add is that flaked barley goes wonderfully in a pale lager, really enhances the drinkability. 25% is great.

 

[GuyQLD]

One question I have after reading the whole thread: someone mentioned a "tax via malt percentage", which, apparently lead to guinness' malt bill. Is there any truth to that?

I've seen this mentioned (although not specifically in conjunction with Guinness) over on Ron Pattison's blog at certain times, taxes being on a per bushel rate. It changed a couple of times over the centuries to other, better methods but during this time using adjuncts obviously became popular.

I'd say 70% malt would be closer to the mark, but I don't have any data to back that up.

I went to the XXXX Brewery tour for a mates party once, they flat up tell you during the tour it's 80% malt, 20% cane sugar.

 

[Blind Dog]

Pretty sure there's no beer currently produced where the ingredients are based on pre MashTun Act (1880) taxes. From then on taxes, at least in the UK Have been based on the gravity of the wort or abv of the finished beer

I went to the XXXX Brewery tour for a mates party once, they flat up tell you during the tour it's 80% malt, 20% cane sugar.

Jeez that's above and beyond

 

[dent]

80% malt, 20% cane sugar.

Wow that isn't very much sugar at all.

I wonder if malt flavours are extracted from the mash more easily that the rest of the saccharine content - so when you get 100%+ efficiency out of the grain like XXXX presumably would, more sugars are extracted, but not more flavour, resulting in a swill beer.

 

[Bribie G]

A lot of home brewers describe the likes of XXXX as "swill". I feel this is a result of their palates changing as a result of them being bludgeoned by drinking maltier, fuller flavoured beers. Whilst there are indeed some shockers out there such as TED there are some nicely subtle Australian lagers out there. Melbourne Bitter (from glass not can) is an example.

I've often noticed that after drinking "craft" beers at a pub then going onto "swill" at the next pub, the so called swill can often hold its head up quite well.

Couple of examples, when I was staying at Woolgoolga I picked up a couple of Paulaner litre steins with litre cans from Dan's at Coffs on the way through. Very nice and a litre at the motel knocked the rough edges off the journey. Then we popped over the road to the RSL and to my surprise the Reschs Draught held its head up proudly as mentioned.

I defy you to try a few Gage Roads Stone and Wood style beers but intersperse them with a couple of Cascade Pale Ales (actually a lager of course). You'll be pleasantly surprised.

Finally Dent if you ever go to Brisbane then head for the Breakfast Creek Hotel and sink a few XXXX off the wooden barrel. :icon_drool2: :icon_drool2: :icon_drool2:

edit: PS I often feel that the "swill" tag is put onto lagers by drinkers who prefer ales. So drink your ales but it's like beef eaters decrying the bland nature of chicken without bothering to explore the world of poultry cuisine.

 

[klangers]

I find that hard to believe - I brewed once (as a challenge) a pale lager with 50% white sugar as fermentables. I put a lot of work into the fermentation to make sure it was spot on. It was the most swillingest of swill beer - if I'm stuck drinking something carlton at the pub it brings me right back to that brew - but really I don't see how they could push it any further than that. I'd say 70% malt would be closer to the mark, but I don't have any data to back that up.

When I was told by a brewer who works at Tooheys I also found this hard to believe - bear in mind though that the sugar they use isn't white sugar. It's liquid sugar of some form and it may well be more suited to brewing. He could have been bullshitting me but I don't think he's the type to do so.

I did a stint over at Vietnam breweries where they brew Tiger, Larue and Heineken. Heineken was 100% malt, Tiger was 50% malt, 50% rice (tasteless fermentables) and Larue was 30% malt 70% rice. All hops were iso hops.

 

[dent]

Yeah, I am using "swill" more of a style descriptor than a disparagement - probably a bad habit - I've lately been brewing beer of my own I label swill too, which is to say pale, lightly hopped lager.

I agree, sometimes it is impressive how clean and drinkable these beers can be. It's just a shame those good beers are seldom the most popular ones the local pub.


I have had the XXXX on the wood at the BCH - it is fantastic. If only all Australian lager was that good.

 

[Bribie G]

Bugger, only 8.45 Eastern Time and I'm thirsty already. :blink: