Which type of crushed malt will give me the highest enzyme activity?

[The Baron]

Strange that Cwrw666 I have used Minch Lager and Ale for years and have always got less efficiency with the Lager.
Strange?

 

[peebee]

All this above is a bit too technical for me...

That was my original point. "DP" is way too technical for most home-brewers to be arsing about with (and misinterpreting!), just now.

Strange that Cwrw666 I have used Minch Lager and Ale for years and have always got less efficiency with the Lager.
Strange?

Not so strange? I too end up with lower efficiency using European lager-like malts (or does that just make it stranger?).

 

[peebee]

Noticed something last night. The OP for this thread was dated 10 April 2021. Not exactly a "zombie thread", but it was heading that way. This recent discussion adds to the long list of inadvertently woken up old threads. You can easily see who did wake it up ... seems it was some guy called "@peebee": What a muppet ...

Hahaha... hohoho... hahaha ...

Haha ... Ha ... ... Ha ...

Hang-on?

 

[peebee]

But the thread is woken up now.

And discussing the virtues of "diastatic power" for home-brewing.

I was originally interested in this to develop my historic brown malt emulations, to predict how it might convert using it as 100% of the grist (historically; it converted as low as 80% of the equivalent pale malt). I was surprised 'DP" seems to have credibility amongst home-brewers. Originally I wasn't very supportive of this use. Whereas now ...

I was suspicious of its value to home-brewers. Googling it, all the recent articles seemed to be American home-brewing related, and it's often measured in "Lintner", an American measure. I did find it was of commercial value for assessing how much un-malted adjunct could be converted by the malt; the sort of abominable practice that kicked off the American "craft beer" revolution! I also learnt that "less than 30 Lintner and the mash wont convert" perhaps (?) comes from it taking so long, most beta-amylase will be destroyed at normal mash temperature ("Lintner" is practically determined at enzyme-safe 20°C or there about).

So: Now my view of "diastatic power" for home-brewing is ...

It's complete utter . Don't waste your time with it!

(Oops, I might of upset some folk - sorry!).

I didn't find much better for the European "Lintner" equivalent; "Windisch-Kolbach". The first decent article Google returned about the European equivalent is dated way back in 1934:

MALT ANALYSIS. BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL METHODS, AND THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF RESULTS.

I do like this article, not because it goes on about "diastatic power", but because it measures SG with my favourite tool to use instead of crappy hydrometers ... a pyknometer! They even spell it right, with a "k".


Any decent scholarly articles (i.e. not home-brewing related!) in defence of "diastatic power" will be appreciated.

 

[Sadfield]

So, DP is of no use to us lowly homebrewers because @peebee doesn't approve of anyone liberally using adjuncts. God forbid someone might do something crazy like swapping out pilsner for MO in a Wit recipe, or recreate a 17th century Pea/bean beer, or actually brew an American Lite Lager, and want to check they won't have conversion issues.

 

[peebee]

I knew I'd upset someone! I tried to say "sorry" (actually, I knew exactly who I'd upset!).

But far from me disapproving: I'm amused by some American craft-brewing "clever-dicks" pushing a "feature" (DP) that seems to have been most used by American brewers to estimate the maximum amount of un-malted adjunct they could use (like flaked rice; a "craft beer" definition may exclude the use of excessive adjuncts, but there's no real definition, which makes the term "craft beer" a bit of a nonsense, but one I've just found says "only sell beer made with less than 10% adjuncts" - any such definition excludes Guinness for a starters which perhaps isn't a bad thing). The whole American "Craft Beer" movement came about because some big American brewers were taking the pi** with the so-called "beer" they were putting out.

I do still think something like "DP" could be useful. But in it's current form it leads home-brewers astray and shouldn't be used without understanding it properly (and I'm certainly not there yet).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I might be tempted with 17th century pea/bean beer, but I've never had the desire to pile loads of beans in my ale recreations! "Mum" would have been a (hopped perhaps?) Ale back then (1600s), if it was "Mum" being alluded too? It might be a good subject to apply my emulated historical malt on? The range of wheat malts available might be a problem. The emulations did have a motivation: To suggest suitable beers for a "Sealed Knot" group (1640s to 1650s period).

 

[Sadfield]

Nope, not upset, amused that it only appears to be you who's been led astray and upset by the commonly accepted DP. Which would explain why you piled in on a dead thread. The pea beer was something, someone brewed from Durden Park book IIRC. If not, zythophile has some article on legumes being a common ingredient.

Anyhow, home time so I'll pack my stirring spoon away.

 

[PhilBrew]

Hi peebee

Go on then, I'll bite next ...

I was originally interested in this to develop my historic brown malt emulations, to predict how it might convert using it as 100% of the grist (historically; it converted as low as 80% of the equivalent pale malt)

... I don't understand what you're getting at there, "converted as low as 80%", conversion of starches to sugars (as tested by an iodine test, at least) is like being pregnant, either they're converted or they're not ... so what are you meaning when you say "80% converted"?

Are you meaning that historic, diastatic Brown Malt would have had 80% of the "diastatic power" (I know you don't like that measure, but run with it, for now)? Which would have meant brewers using 100% of that malt in their grist would have been able to swap 20% less of it out for adjuncts before not having sufficient enzymes to fully convert their mash, to pass an iodine test

Or are you saying that brewers mashing 100% historic, diastatic Brown Malt would achieve 80% of the extract from those mashing 100% Pale Malt? In which case I think you're confusing "diastatic power" for "potential extract", as the measure you should be researching ... both are reduced by kilning, presumable as some of the starches/sugars are converted to unconvertable stuff through reactions in the kiln, such as Maillard reactions

This from "Brewing: Science and practice", Briggs, Boulton, Brookes and Stevens, Woodhead Publishing, 2004 ...

Cheers, PhilB

 

[peebee]

The second:

... Or are you saying that brewers mashing 100% historic, diastatic Brown Malt would achieve 80% of the extract from those mashing 100% Pale Malt? In which case I think you're confusing "diastatic power" for "potential extract", as the measure you should be researching ...

After all, it was the low extract that eventually saw brown malt off (as a "base" malt).

80% (20% lost) is just an extreme case I've read; I suspect it wasn't usually that bad.

But how do I emulate that? So I thought I'd play about with "diastatic power" to see what I can do while I'm still no further back than late Georgian (relying on mainly pale malt for conversion). But when I get to 100% brown malt (18th century porters, "Stitch" ales, etc.) I might find it resolves itself: The darker malts in the emulations should already have low extract yields (i.e. some of the starches are denatured by heat and insoluble and unavailable for conversion anyway).

Playing with "diastatic power" does mean I know (ish) that my current brown malt emulations are coming out a touch lower than 30°L (28°L) but the frustrations getting that figure out is the reason I will be easily touched off by the subject (especially the blasé usage by home-brew recipe building programs). Novice brewers are being made to think "DP" is important and they must understand it. But they don't need it, and the information they can glean on it is incomplete, sometimes inaccurate, and ultimately useless.

See? I'm going off on one again.



[EDIT: Thanks for the table BTW. It's always handy having frequent "anchors" to be confident I'm not wandering completely off-course.]

 

[Sadfield]

I'm in bits here, thanks.

After all, it was the low extract that eventually saw brown malt off (as a "base" malt).

80% (20% lost) is just an extreme case I've read; I suspect it wasn't usually that bad.

But how do I emulate that?

Use a lower quantity of pale malt and augment it with black malt? That appeared to be the patently (pun intended) elegant solution that was adopted wholesale by victorian brewers and drinkers, all having access to the before and after products to compare. Or am I being too simplistic in thinking the substitute for Diastatic brown malt as a base malt, is what they actually replaced it with?

 

[PhilBrew]

Hi peebee, OK so it's extract and efficiency you're (really) looking into ...

After all, it was the low extract that eventually saw brown malt off (as a "base" malt) ... So I thought I'd play about with "diastatic power"

... and there's the leap, that I don't understand ... you seem to have jumped to this assumption that the reason for that decrease in efficiency was the lower DP of the Brown Malt, completely overlooking the fact that increased kilning would have reduced the extract potential of those Brown Malt grains as well as denaturing (some of) the diastase enzymes ... isn't it likely that there were sufficient enzymes in those 100% diastatic Brown Malt beers for conversion, back then? Otherwise the beers produced would have been starchy/syrup-ey and when brewers started adding Pale Malt to their grists the (fully converted wort) beers produced would have been like bringing an entirely new product to market, instead of the same product produced more efficiently

So, DP is of no use to us lowly homebrewers because @peebee doesn't approve of anyone liberally using adjuncts.

... more like "DP is of no use because @peebee didn't find it useful when he tried to use it for a use it was never intended" ... really peebee, concentrate on extract, then ensure that you have sufficient DP to convert ... literally no-one (except you, by implication) is suggesting DP can be used as some fine control efficiency reducer/increaser ... it's just a measure to check whether your mash will "work" or not, but as that, it may be quite useful

Novice brewers are being made to think "DP" is important and they must understand it.

... but they're not, they REALLY aren't! You may have found quite a few conversations and references to it by search, but across the various forums I frequent the subject hardly ever arises. Only when a novice brewer arrives wanting to brew a Guinness or main-stream, high-adjunct Lager clone or a Belgian Wit as their first/an early AG brew is the topic likely to be raised ... and even then it's more likely that the general rule of thumb "make sure you have at least half of your grist as base malt" will be quoted, rather than in its "make sure your grist averages 35/40L" form

Cheers, PhilB

 

[Sadfield]

... more like "DP is of no use because @peebee didn't find it useful when he tried to use it for a use it was never intended" ...

Ha, yes. I'm trying to trace back my family tree, but Einstein's theories on Relativity are no help to me .

 

[peebee]

Use a lower quantity of pale malt and augment it with black malt? That appeared to be the patently (pun intended) elegant solution that was adopted wholesale by victorian brewers and drinkers, all having access to the before and after products to compare. Or am I being too simplistic in thinking the substitute for Diastatic brown malt as a base malt, is what they actually replaced it with?

Hmm. I think my continuing a thread from another forum in a hijacked dead thread in this forum that I just happened by, was a bad move. I think I should restart this conversation in it's own thread complete with a far better introduction of what I'm doing. I'll work on it.

But despite my unorthodox manner of bringing the subject up you and @PhilBrew are having a positive influence on my approach to this "project". Thanks

 

[peebee]

For the time being, here's a Whitbread's 1849 Porter clone ("mild", i.e. not significantly aged, and no Brett components):

(Warning: Don't eat tomatoes with 6.5% ABV porter! ).

Recipe dug up from Ron Pattinson's grubbing about. Pale malt (Chevallier), black malt, and an emulation of traditionally kilned brown malt.

I'd prefer to show the Barclay Perkin's 1804 TT (porter) but it's not old enough for drinking yet (recipe also thanks to Ron's sifting through brewery records). It's composed of emulations of traditionally kilned brown malt, amber malt and pale malt ("traditionally kilned" because there was no indirectly heated rotating cylinder kilns for malt at that time - not invented until 1817 - and therefore no black malt either). I've a William Black's 1835 Brown Stout clone with emulated amber and brown malts (that does have black malt too) but nowhere near ready to drink (7.5% ABV and 75 IBU).

I'm heading towards an approximation of 17th century "Darbie Ale" (straw/coke kilned pale malt). I was born in Derby!


That little lot might help explain some of the motivations behind this "project". I'd attempt making actual brown (pale, amber, etc.) malt rather than "emulations", but think of the effort. All the changes to keep pace with different combinations (like pale malt in porter), all the kiln and fuel changes to get rid of or add in smoke flavours, the changes in kiln design, etc., etc.

 

[user 43495]

I'm looking to add quite a lot of adjuncts, so will need the maximum enzyme content for conversion.

Crushed pale. Years ago I formulated a recipe to replicate an old English brown ale. I obtained a sack of brown malt which has a low diastatic quality so instead of using all brown i think from memory I did roughly 30% brown and the rest pale, with an extra overall quantity. That was back in the early 1990s. I recall it worked fine. Nowadays when I make this beer I use Bavarian smoked malt (small amount, just enough) and the rest is modern pale. I recall experimenting with Carapils having obtained a copy of the Durden Park Beer Club masterpiece "Old British beers and how to make them". That was fascinating. It told how to sour one's porters to make them as they really would have been all that time ago. Modern porters are really fakes. However I doubt many today would have the palate to match their sourness. Proper Guinness (the FES versions) and Harvey's Imperial Double Stout at 9% are perhaps the only true surviving relatives of this extraordinary beer type. Harvey's being the Real Deal. If you're ever in Sedgley (west Mids) go to the Beacon Hotel. Apart from being a fab Victorian pub they still do the sort of mild which historically just meant not soured (for porter). Sarah Hughes Ruby Mild. it used to be 8% but I think they've reduced it to something like 7.6%.

 

[peebee]

@The magistrate : Careful, you are doing the same as me. "Andy-10's" post was from earlier this year (April 2021) and he hasn't been back to the site since then.

Couple of pointers on "Durden Park Beer Club": They didn't mean "Carapils", they were referring to "Caramalt" (EBC30-ish). Someone got upset about people using their registered trade marked product to mean something else. "Carapils" is aka. Dextrin Malt at a very low 2-3EBC. I don't remember anything on "sourness" in the DPBC booklet, but I've a later edition. Nowadays we can just tip in a "Brett" culture, but I've yet to try. By Victorian times porters were blended at the time of casking, about 2 parts "mild" (unaged) to 1 part aged and sour (Brett infected). Until about 1860s, after which all porter was "mild" (unaged) and giving up its ground rapidly to "mild Ale".

Victorian "mild Ale" (Ron Pattinson informed me the style is "Ale" not "mild", or the then definition of "Ale" as opposed to "Beer") was always pale. No connection with porter. But they did churn out "Table Porter" in the Georgian period (SG about 1.030, so very modern day "Mild" like). They didn't use crystal malt much in Victorian times even though it was about from mid-19th Century-ish. So "Sarah Hughes Ruby Mild" being "Victorian" is a nonsense (contains loads of crystal malt), I think it came to be about 1920s? So it is still "old", and I wouldn't mind trying it some day.

I too love the "Proper Guinness", shame it's so difficult to get in the UK. I'm sure Guinness will love you calling it "Proper": It's not brewed by Guinness, but under a very unusual licence with a brewer in Belgium Guinness® Special Export. I presume that's what you meant?


(Acknowledgements: Much of the bumph I've typed is from Ron Pattinson's work, except the stuff he doesn't agree with which must have other sources, or me getting it wrong again).

 

[Sadfield]

However I doubt many today would have the palate to match their sourness. Proper Guinness (the FES versions) and Harvey's Imperial Double Stout at 9% are perhaps the only true surviving relatives of this extraordinary beer type. Harvey's being the Real Deal.

It's a shame, love an aged Porter/Stout, although, they do come and go on the craft beer scene as there are a fair few breweries that entertain mix fermentation, barrel aging and historical recreation projects. Deya have Pull The Night Around Your Shoulders a 6.8% bretted porter out at the moment. And, Burning Sky will have some variation of Monolith available.