Diastatic Amber malt

[alefric LeHendz]

I picked up some diastatic amber malt today and am just wondering if anyone has an idea how this compares to regular amber. I'm looking to brew one of the durden park recipes that uses 30% amber and was wondering if it would be worth doing two batches with each kind and comparing

 

[strange-steve]

I'm far from an expert on historical brewing but as I understand it modern amber malt is kilned hotter/longer than it would have been historically, so diastatic amber would probably be a closer match as it's more gently roasted to preserve diastatic enzymes. Obviously this will affect the flavour too, probably being less toasty/biscuity than the standard amber malt.

 

[peebee]

I picked up some diastatic amber malt today and am just wondering if anyone has an idea how this compares to regular amber. I'm looking to brew one of the durden park recipes that uses 30% amber and was wondering if it would be worth doing two batches with each kind and comparing

As @strange-steve said, historic amber malt would have been kilned at lower temperatures to retain diastatic activity ... or to be more accurately at lower average temperature through the grain bed than modern-day amber malt. Temperature control was less controllable with the grain in beds than "modern" means ("modern" ... relatively speaking as rotating drums for kilning have been around since mid-19th century). The bit of colouring due to some grain being kilned darker accounted for the overall colour; speed the process up and you end up with diastatic brown malt.

So the question is: What process did they use for creating this "diastatic amber malt"?

Modern kilning uses very tightly controlled temperatures and moisture levels.

A malt I'm playing with is Simpson's "Imperial Malt" which will have been subject to the precise temperature/moisture control (enzyme activity is preserved much longer if the moisture levels are lowered before kilning the colour). "Imperial Malt" comes in at 45EBC which is the darkest I know of at the moment. Modern amber malts are 60-100EBC, so I'm interested if you've got something darker. Imperial Malt will likely have a very "non-historic" flavour (probably more like "Melanoidin Malt"?).

At this very moment I've got a 20L batch of a Durden Park Beer Club recipe fermenting (Day 1, SG currently at 1.032). It's Amber Small Beer (1823) by Cobb & Co of Margate. Same beer? Except I've exchanged 30% Amber Malt for 40% Imperial Malt because it's lighter (and very enzymatic). I'll try plain amber malt another day (70% Pale Malt will easily provide enzymes to convert the Amber). But will be very interested in a historic amber malt for a re-match as that is what must have been used early in 19th century (with Chevallier barley pale malt perhaps?).

 

[The Baron]

I fit gives less toasty biscuity taste why not add a little biscuit malt to bring it back if that is what you want

 

[Cwrw666]

I'm looking to brew one of the durden park recipes that uses 30% amber and was wondering if it would be worth doing two batches with each kind and comparing

I did this one recently - Cobb & co 1823 amber small beer. I would recomend you make your amber following the instructions in the book. Smelt amazing. The beer was very nice, quite bitter but not too much, nice floral aroma and strong toffee flavours from the amber malt. I'll definitely be brewing this one again.

 

[alefric LeHendz]

As @strange-steve said, historic amber malt would have been kilned at lower temperatures to retain diastatic activity ... or to be more accurately at lower average temperature through the grain bed than modern-day amber malt. Temperature control was less controllable with the grain in beds than "modern" means ("modern" ... relatively speaking as rotating drums for kilning have been around since mid-19th century). The bit of colouring due to some grain being kilned darker accounted for the overall colour; speed the process up and you end up with diastatic brown malt.

So the question is: What process did they use for creating this "diastatic amber malt"?

Modern kilning uses very tightly controlled temperatures and moisture levels.

A malt I'm playing with is Simpson's "Imperial Malt" which will have been subject to the precise temperature/moisture control (enzyme activity is preserved much longer if the moisture levels are lowered before kilning the colour). "Imperial Malt" comes in at 45EBC which is the darkest I know of at the moment. Modern amber malts are 60-100EBC, so I'm interested if you've got something darker. Imperial Malt will likely have a very "non-historic" flavour (probably more like "Melanoidin Malt"?).

At this very moment I've got a 20L batch of a Durden Park Beer Club recipe fermenting (Day 1, SG currently at 1.032). It's Amber Small Beer (1823) by Cobb & Co of Margate. Same beer? Except I've exchanged 30% Amber Malt for 40% Imperial Malt because it's lighter (and very enzymatic). I'll try plain amber malt another day (70% Pale Malt will easily provide enzymes to convert the Amber). But will be very interested in a historic amber malt for a re-match as that is what must have been used early in 19th century (with Chevallier barley pale malt perhaps?).

The durden park recipe is the 1796 Bass visitors book amber ale which uses 33% amber. I do have a Chevallier (80%) + imperial malt(13%)pale ale I'm looking to make next weekend actually. This diastatic amber is 50 EBC, and looking on the website claims to be Belgian in origin.
I think I ordered some more Chevallier too so that would definitely be something to try.

 

[Cwrw666]

Ok, - the one I mentioned is also one third amber.
I've never bought amber malt but have to say the stuff I made myself smelt unlike anything I've ever had before from a homebrew suppliers. I still think you should make your own and compare it to the bought stuff.

 

[alefric LeHendz]

Ok, - the one I mentioned is also one third amber.
I've never bought amber malt but have to say the stuff I made myself smelt unlike anything I've ever had before from a homebrew suppliers. I still think you should make your own and compare it to the bought stuff.

That definently sounds worth giving a try, good use of the spare pale malt I've got

 

[peebee]

That definently sounds worth giving a try, good use of the spare pale malt I've got

I think it will be worth a try, and probably will add good flavours. But do not confuse it with being "historically" correct. It is no more historically correct (as if that matters) than my use of "Imperial Malt" in place of amber malt (or "Dark Munich Malt", or the other substitutes). It might remain marginally diastatic as the enzymes might survive the cooking in the oven (no guarantee, but as I said earlier, if the remaining 70% of grain is pale malt that will be enough to do the job).

The reason the instructions are in the booklet is because when it was created (1970s) "amber" malt for the homebrew market did not exist.


What of the "diastatic amber malt" you have?

 

[alefric LeHendz]

I think it will be worth a try, and probably will add good flavours. But do not confuse it with being "historically" correct. It is no more historically correct (as if that matters) than my use of "Imperial Malt" in place of amber malt (or "Dark Munich Malt", or the other substitutes). It might remain marginally diastatic as the enzymes might survive the cooking in the oven (no guarantee, but as I said earlier, if the remaining 70% of grain is pale malt that will be enough to do the job).

The reason the instructions are in the booklet is because when it was created (1970s) "amber" malt for the homebrew market did not exist.


What of the "diastatic amber malt" you have?

That is the actual name they've given the malt, other than that there aren't too many details I can find.

I'm pretty sure it's the one on this list: Brupaks malt list

 

[peebee]

The durden park recipe is the 1796 Bass visitors book amber ale which uses 33% amber. I do have a Chevallier (80%) + imperial malt(13%)pale ale I'm looking to make next weekend actually. This diastatic amber is 50 EBC, and looking on the website claims to be Belgian in origin.
I think I ordered some more Chevallier too so that would definitely be something to try.

Missed this reply, sorry. The 1796 Amber Ale, I've been overlooking that too, and the preceding 1823 Amber Ale (the "Amber Small Beer's" big brother from same source) which is about the same as the 1796 except no spice and almost twice the hops and therefore considerably longer maturing time to moderate the extra bitterness. They both pre-date drum roasters so the amber (and pale) malts were possibly artisan products from the countryside and diastatic, roasted carefully over "clean" coke fires (the masses will have been drinking "Porter" made from brown malt kilned less carefully over possibly smoky wood fires).

If you look back at the "Porter/Brown Ale" post and that curve I drew (>Brown Malt<) you can imagine a similar curve, but squashed together, representing historic "Amber Malt". The Belgium "Diastatic Amber Malt" (modern drum roasted malt) you already have would fit that curve okay-ish, adding a touch of say Thomas Fawcett's Amber Malt (100EBC) to bring the overall spread of colour up (the Belgium diastatic amber alone is a bit anaemic at 50-60EBC). That would be a better suggestion than my earlier ideas. You could even replace a portion of this with some home-roasted amber malt for the flavour.

Chevallier harks from 1820s onward, so you wouldn't need it to be approximately "historically accurate".

Of course, I'm just thinking aloud on me feet for my own benefit too. Ignore me if I'm being too outlandish.

 

[An Ankoù]

Ok, - the one I mentioned is also one third amber.
I've never bought amber malt but have to say the stuff I made myself smelt unlike anything I've ever had before from a homebrew suppliers. I still think you should make your own and compare it to the bought stuff.

Yup. AMber malt, bought or home-made, smells and tastes like nothing else. If you're looking at recipe #1 in the Durden Park book, I've made it twice and it has a most unusual flavour and makes you thirsty as you drink it. Let it mature and it's a very nice, if unusual, beer.

 

[Cwrw666]

1823 Amber Ale (the "Amber Small Beer's" big brother from same source) which is about the same as the 1796 except no spice and almost twice the hops and therefore considerably longer maturing time to moderate the extra bitterness.

Have to say I drank mine quite young and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe because my usual go to beer for a while now has been Pattinsons recipe for 1864 Lovibond XB which is considerably more bitter, and I prefer that young too - great floral hop aroma if drunk within a few weeks of bottling.

 

[An Ankoù]

Have to say I drank mine quite young and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe because my usual go to beer for a while now has been Pattinsons recipe for 1864 Lovibond XB which is considerably more bitter, and I prefer that young too - great floral hop aroma if drunk within a few weeks of bottling.

I'm sure I've got his recipe somewhere, Lovibond being such a memorable and daft name for a beer. It certainly sounds like the stuff I like to drink, too. So I might even have a go at it.
Yep. Found the recipe in "Vintage Beers". Got the makings so it's getting brewed. Thanks for the tip @Cwrw666

 

[peebee]

Have to say I drank mine quite young and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe because my usual go to beer for a while now has been Pattinsons recipe for 1864 Lovibond XB which is considerably more bitter, and I prefer that young too - great floral hop aroma if drunk within a few weeks of bottling.

You might be referring to "little brother" (#1) 'cos I know you've made that. I was worried my writing wasn't making it clear that I'd started talking about #85 ("big brother"!); twice the gravity (1.081) and twice the hops. Cobb & Co seem to have a habit of using loads of amber malt back then.

I've just made #1 (fermented out in less than 2 days but the temperature stayed below 21C), but chickened out of using Amber Malt and used the marginally lighter Simpson's Imperial Malt (45EBC, but used slightly more at 40%). The Belgium diastatic amber malt @alefric LeHendz is talking about looks interesting, but also quite light at 50-60EBC.

 

[alefric LeHendz]

You might be referring to "little brother" (#1) 'cos I know you've made that. I was worried my writing wasn't making it clear that I'd started talking about #85 ("big brother"!); twice the gravity (1.081) and twice the hops. Cobb & Co seem to have a habit of using loads of amber malt back then.

I've just made #1 (fermented out in less than 2 days but the temperature stayed below 21C), but chickened out of using Amber Malt and used the marginally lighter Simpson's Imperial Malt (45EBC, but used slightly more at 40%). The Belgium diastatic amber malt @alefric LeHendz is talking about looks interesting, but also quite light at 50-60EBC.

I'll be looking to make #85 using regular Amber first I think, see how that turns out then experiment with the others

 

[An Ankoù]

Have to say I drank mine quite young and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe because my usual go to beer for a while now has been Pattinsons recipe for 1864 Lovibond XB which is considerably more bitter, and I prefer that young too - great floral hop aroma if drunk within a few weeks of bottling.

As promised above, I've just knocked up a batch of 1864 Lovibond according to Pattinsons's recipe in "Vintage Beers" He uses 3 charges of 2 oz of Goldings in an unspecified batch size, which, working backwards, I put at 25-26 litres. He claims 80+ IBUs, which I have difficulty getting from the stated quantities of hops with 5% alpha acid. So I've gone by weight instead of IBUs (as the brewers would have done in 1864).
I made 12 litres overstrength with the hope of liquoring back to 15 litres (in fact I only got 14 L at 1053) So I've got three charges of 35g of 5% Goldings leaf, which running through BF IBU calculator with a batch size of 15L and a boil size of 12L should give me 62.16 IBUs. I'm happy with that.
Tasting the wort in the trial jar, there's hardly any taste of bitterness either immediate or residual- I'm more than a bit surprised at this. Instead, the wort tastes almost like honey, with a lovely floral fragrance. I'm looking forward to what I expect to be a very fragrant, hoppy, Summer Lightning.
I used Minch, Hook-head pale malt and am fermenting with MJ M42 (as I had a crop ready from an earlier brew).
My trials on Chevallier malt do seem to confirm that this malt somehow reduces hop bitterness, so I'm glad I didn't use it.
Thanks again to @Cwrw666 , I'm looking forward to this one.

 

[Cwrw666]

Batch size in Pattinsons recipes is 23L. It says somewhere in the book but not with the actual recipes.

 

[peebee]

Have to say I drank mine quite young and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe because my usual go to beer for a while now has been Pattinsons recipe for 1864 Lovibond XB which is considerably more bitter, and I prefer that young too - great floral hop aroma if drunk within a few weeks of bottling.

You might be referring to "little brother" (#1) 'cos I know you've made that. I was worried my writing wasn't making it clear that I'd started talking about #85 ("big brother"!); twice the gravity (1.081) and twice the hops. …

Ah, I'm putting words in your mouth. It was @An Ankoù that I knew had made #1, I haven't a clue whether you've brewed it or no. So, were you talking about #85 (the stronger one) and was it okay 'cos I have my eyes on it?

 

[Cwrw666]

Ah, I'm putting words in your mouth. It was @An Ankoù that I knew had made #1, I haven't a clue whether you've brewed it or no. So, were you talking about #85 (the stronger one) and was it okay 'cos I have my eyes on it?

No #1.