RSS

Tag Archives: malting barley

Un-aerated steeping Part 1

Ok, mind blown, and I don’t know how I’ve missed this key piece of information. Sometimes I feel like the world of malting is shrouded in so much mystery that you have to be a detective to figure it out. The data in the Scotch Bigg Report provided the biggest piece of the puzzle that was missing for me: that long germination times are only possible with un-aerated steeps. The report gives us actual recorded steep times, which are shockingly long 40-118 hours. What may be even more important was the observation in the report that some maltsters only changed their steep water once or twice and some not at all. But how is this possible? Most texts I’ve read state that the grain will die if submerged for over 24 hours, I’ve told people this myself (my apologies). In fact, I believe it’s only been in the last 150 years that aeration has been used in the steeping process – but I’ll have to do some further investigating to confirm this. In part one of this project, I do a side by side comparison of malt steeped with air rests and malt steeped for 72 hours without. Results in a nutshell: the un-aerated tastes better, but I haven’t brewed with them yet, that’s part two. One factor that may skew the comparison is that I malted these barley samples at the same temperature, which was lower than I would normally malt aerated barley – this may have affected the flavour of the aerated malt. This will be addressed in part three – how does historically malted barley compare with modern malt (malted at warmer temperatures – 15C, 59F)

 
19 Comments

Posted by on February 12, 2017 in History, un-aerated malt

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The Barley and Scotch Bigg Report of 1806 and the influence of a long un-aerated steep on germination time

ugsp00784_m

Thomas Thomson

I recently came across a significant study about brewing and malting that was written in 1806 and it is fascinating. It’s entitled: Report of the Experiments made, by the Direction of the Honourable Board of Excise in Scotland to ascertain the relative Qualities of Malt made from Barley and Scotch Bigg.  You can read it here on page 9 (press “preview book”) I am not a beer historian but I believe this is one of the first large-scale surveys conducted for the brewing industry using scientific methods in England.  In 1806 Thomas Thomson, along with authors Hope and Coventry conducted a series of experiments comparing the qualities of Barley to that of Scottish Bigg in order to reduce the tax on Bigg since it was thought to make a lower quality malt for brewing and distilling. Bigg is another name for Bere or Bear, an old variety of six-row barley believed to have been introduced to Britain by the Vikings in the 8th or 9th century. It grows faster than barley so it can be sown later and harvested earlier and is ideal for climates with a short growing season. Their findings were published in a report presented to the House of Commons. They concluded that Bigg was 8-14% less productive than English Barley (depending on which author you asked) and proposed that the tax on Brigg should be reduced by one-third. Their survey was very comprehensive collecting the data from malting, brewing and distilling about 36,000 lbs. of English barley, 41,000 lbs. of Scottish barley and 55,500 lbs. of Scottish Bigg. This became a publication that would be referred to for years to come. You can find sections of the report quoted directly 40 years later in The Scottish Ale Brewer and Practical Maltster pg.208  by W.H. Roberts in 1846. By the way, it was Thomas Thomson who devised an accurate hydrometer for this study which was specific for brewing and distilling called the  Allan’s Saccharometer.

Of course what I found the most interesting is the section on malting. This is the earliest accurate written survey (in English) that I’m aware of with steep times, moisture content, germination temperature, kilning times and malt temperatures in actual malthouses. I must say the numbers are pretty surprising, like the 20 day germination times and the rather low kilning temperatures. By having this data we’re getting an insight into the brewing and malting methods of the time. For example, the practice described in the report for judging if barley has been steeped enough was to squeeze a grain end to end, if it was soft enough to be crushed then it was deemed to have enough moisture for germination. (This method is also described in the London and Country Brewer of 1736.) But the report also details the weight increase after steeping of each sample (pg 23) and using these numbers we can figure out the moisture contents which, low and behold, were the same ranges of moisture contents used today, 39%-46%. That’s a pretty good “rule of thumb”.  We don’t know the initial moisture content of all the barley used in the report but one sample was dried out and according to the weights given had a moisture content of 12.5 %. This is the figure I used in the calculation since any barley that’s properly dried and meant to last in storage would have had a moisture content under 14% so it’s likely a good average number. I think I’ll try this method on my next batch of malt and compare it to my calculated moisture contents.

2-row barley and 6-row Bere

2-row barley and 6-row Bere or Bigg

Even though moisture contents were the same, steep times were very long ranging from 44 hours to 116 hours with the averages being 81 hours for English barley, 76 hours for Scottish barley and 71.5 hours for Bigg. Maltsters were actually required to steep not less than 40 hours by law otherwise they would be fined. The report does mention water changes occurring on pg 20. “Some Maltmen change the water once or twice, while the grain is in the steep, others not at all”  I was curious to know what effects such a long steep has on germination and how this does not kill the grain? I found my answer in Malting and Brewing Science pg 48 (Hough, Briggs,Stevens 1971) ” The traditional English practice of long steeps without aeration tends to stifle the grain, and is said to hold back “bolters” so producing more even germination on the floor. As already noted prolonged steeping induces in barley a condition similar to water sensitivity.”  Water sensitivity is a condition where the barley will not germinate while there is a surface film of moisture on the grain. This explains why with this method chitting occurs so late, after 4 days according to the report ! When using air rests in the steep regimen chitting often begins before steeping is finished leading to a rapid uptake of water. In describing highly aerated steeping Hough, Briggs, and Stevens state ” Such extreme aeration is probably too costly to use as a routine measure. Particularaly in floor malting, the vigorous growth, with the production of heat, is liable to get out of control, leading to high malting losses…”

Since the germination starts so late with the traditional method it’s safe to assume that the grain will be drier while it is growing thus slowing things down even more. I always wondered why I could not replicate these long germination times using commercial steeping schedules. Every time I tried, my barley would be on the verge of bolting on day 7. As to the wide ranges of times in the report, a major factor in the rate of absorption of water is temperature as well as variety and quality of barley. Also the fact that these samples were carried out by different maltsters could explain some of the variance as well, according to Thomson “They seem to be regulated not so much by any determinate plan, as by custom, or perhaps, in some cases, by caprice.”

On Germination: The times from when the barley was cast onto the floor from the steep tank to the time it was deemed ready ranged from 12 days to 20 for brewing. Shorter times of 8 and 10 days were for distillation. The average for brewing was 14 days for the good quality barley. As mentioned the growth of the acrospire described in the report and in other historical texts was much slower. On page 30 there is a description of acrospires usually reaching only half the length of the grain on days 7-9. It has been my experience that acrospires are at this length after 3-4 days, this makes sense given the extra 4 days required to chit. One way malt is judged to be modified is when the starch turns into a smooth chalky paste, which today happens on day 5-8 (for a pale malt) depending on temperature and barley variety. The same is true for traditional malt and usually occurs when the acrospire is 4/5ths the length of the grain. There is a good description of determining the modification of traditional malt in the 1854 Encyclopaedia Brittanica on Brewing pg 322  which describes the malt undergoing two stages of apparent modification, the “first free” occuring on day 9 – 10 where the grain will feel chalky. At this stage the malt will produce “tolerable” beer. Then the grain hardens once again for another few days until the acrospire has reached 4/5ths the length of the grain usually happening on day 14. It also mentions English germination times averaging 14 days at 62 F and in Scotland 16-20 days at 55 F.

Another highlight of this report are the kiln temperatures, but I’ll save that one for another post.

Have fun reading these links and jumping down this rabbit hole!

 

 
15 Comments

Posted by on January 20, 2017 in History

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Perfect Malt?

I recently read an interesting research article pointed out to me by Bleepbloop, thanks Bleepbloop! The article is from China and published in the Wiley Online Library by The Institute of Brewing and Distilling. The title is a doozy: “Optimization of kilning progress for equilibrating multiple parameters that strictly affect malt flavour and sensory evaluation” The researchers objective was to determine what times and temperatures create the “perfect malt”. Unfortunately, to read the whole thing you have to rent it for $6 but you can get the main idea from the summary.

In their experiments they measured the levels of  positive and negative flavour compounds in relation to drying times (referred to as withering time in the article) and curing time and temperature. The compounds they were measuring were lipid oxydation or LOX activity, nonenal potential, TBZ (content of carbonyl compounds) methional, furfural, hexanol and phenylacetaldehyde. All of which I believe contribute to either stale or cardboard flavours. They also measured levels of H-hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H) or HDMF which is the main contributor to sweetness and malty aroma. As well malt samples were given a sensory score rated by 7 professional sensory panellists from the Tsingtao Brewery

After plotting their data they’ve concluded that the ideal drying time is 14 hours: 1 hr at 45C, 5 hrs. at 55C, 5 hrs. at 65C, 3 hrs at 76C, 50% re-used air at 76C. Note: given the high temperatures I’m assuming that these would be the kiln temperatures below the bed or the “air-on” temperatures. Curing temperature is 86.35C for 3.19 hours.

Most of the article describes their methodology and what kind of testing was used for each flavour compound and it doesn’t go into that much detail about the effects of each compound. They also specify that these results would be different for different varieties of barley. The variety they were using was Gairdner barley grown in Australia. There is a lot of information in this article I don’t understand but the conclusion is interesting. I wish they had included the malt temperature during the kilning because without it, it’s impossible to replicate exactly. I do wonder how detectable these flavours are and at what point are they noticeable? The curing temperatures tested ranged from 84C to 90C, curing times ranges from 2.5-3.5 hours and drying times measured ranged from 10-14 hours. Not a wide range at all, in fact, they kind of seem on the low end of the scale. Unfortunately, there was no mention of diastatic power in the article as the study just focussed on flavour and there was no mention of moisture contents. I also find it strange that they did not include the kilning schedules for the 10 and 12 hour kilned malts. Are we to assume that the temperature increases coincided with the same moisture contents in each sample? There seems to be some key information missing here that would have made this article more useful.

This research paper makes me wonder if “perfect” is something that is worth achieving or does this goal bring with it the risk of industrial uniformity. It still seems to me that there are enough variables involved that what is considered perfect is still subjective. Of course, it’s interesting to see what is at play when making malt and it’s good to know that  the levels of those flavour compounds that cause stale or cardboard flavours are measurable. However, I have never noticed these flavours in my malts so it’s not something I’ve ever worried about. I have tried this schedule with my barley, knowing that I couldn’t actually replicate their conditions without using the same equipment, and I found I needed another hour or two curing time to become more friable, meaning my malt was not dry enough. As it was, the roots were still a little flexible and hard to shake off. It would be interesting to see this same experiment done on a greater scale, that is with wider temperature and kilning time ranges. I’m sure for large scale maltsters this is a useful article but for myself I think I prefer variety, good or bad. The best beer I’ve ever had was the pale ale I made from the diastatic brown malt that was dried over fire, very far from scientifically “perfect” I’m sure but beyond perfect in my mind.

 
24 Comments

Posted by on December 2, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

Hulled Barley Malt and Debittered Black Patent Malt

I’m often asked “How soon can I use my malt after kilning it or roasting it?” I’ve read a lot of literature that states the malt needs to rest before being used, but I haven’t found a really good answer as to why or what changes happen to the malt during this resting period.  In John Malletts book Malt he states that “Freshly kilned malt has poor performance in the brewhouse (most likely because of uneven moisture distribution throughout the batch)”. Apparently, milling and lautering are easier when moisture levels have “equalized”.  Jean  DeClerck in  A Textbook of Brewing describes claims that freshly kilned malt is said to saccharify less and give a turbid wort and may also give rise to a poor fermentation and colloidal haze in the beer. He goes on to state that there is not much scientific data to back this claim but theorizes that it might have something to do with the slight re-absorption of moisture. He also points out that there has been shown to be a rise in diastatic power during the storage period and suggests that this is due to the liberation of amylase enzymes from “some kind of combination.” Recently I came across this article from1979 by H. Rennie and K. Ball on the Influence of Malt Storage on Wort Seperation. By measuring the pressure of flow through the mash beds of new malt vs. aged malt they concluded that there is a significant difference in wort separation after three weeks of aging.  Personally I haven’t noticed any problems using malt soon after kilning but  I haven’t done any side by side comparisons so I can’t really say for sure if it makes a difference, this might be worth another blog post. But if you can wait  the three weeks, then why not it, won’t hurt.

However for roasted malts I can say with certainty that using freshly roasted malts will give you better flavour than anything you can buy in a store. I often use freshly roasted malt and barley and I think it has greatly improved my beers. The flavour of malt or barley right after it’s roasted is rich and bold. The flavour of most of the roasted stuff I’ve bought in comparison is cardboardy and stale. If you had the choice of drinking coffee made from freshly roasted beans or from a can of store bought coffee, I think most would agree, the freshly roasted stuff is going to be better.

In this video I make debittered black malt by using hulled barley. This is barley that has had it’s husk removed. Not the same as pearled barley, that’s processed even further.  It was hard to find, I had to drive 40 minutes to get it but it should make for a few experiments. The tea I made with it tasted really good, it’s an even better caffeine free coffee substitute than roasted barley because it’s smoother.

For the hulled barley malt:

  • Steeped to 42% at 10C 50F
  • Germinated 5 days at 13C 55F
  • 24 hours with fan at room temp 21C 70F
  • 2 hours at 175F  (79C)
  • 1 hour at 185F  (85C)
  • 2 hours at 190F  (88C)

Debittered Black Patent

  • Hulled barley malt roasted at 375F for 1 hour then 30 min at 450F (232C) for a Carafa II style roast 1 hour at 375F then 15 min at 450F (232C).

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Feed Barley I.P.A.

DSC02593

Here’s what I’ve done with some of that feed barley I malted a little while ago. I know an I.P.A. is not the best beer to judge malt quality, the hops mask a lot of the malt character but I felt like drinking an I.P.A. so I made one, so don’t judge!

It’s super tasty, I’m loving these Galaxy hops. I also dry-hopped with Mosaic. There’s a dose of peach up front followed by some citrus and ending with a strong piney bitterness that reminds you you’re drinking beer, not sangria.

I used quite a bit of caramel malt and some honey as well so it may be too malty for the style but I think it’s balanced and for me the sweetness seems to accentuate the fruity character of the hops.The Mosaic hops were sent to me from John from his families hop farm in Washington “thanks John!”

It has a nicely rounded mouth feel and as you can see in the picture a creamy head that likes to linger. O.G. was 1.059  F.G. 1.013 According to Beer Tools my efficiency was 80% What was also surprising is that I had full conversion in one hour.  Being more patient than I used to be with the germination and waiting until it’s really well modified has obviously helped in developing the enzymes in the malt.

If there is a possible flaw it has to do with a faint hint of phenolic flavour that I detected in the last beer I had which would be pretty disappointing. I can barely taste it so I don’t really care but I’ve sent this one off to be judged at the local competition, so we’ll see what the judges say about it in a few weeks. The possible source may be my water. I tried using tap water treated with half a campden tablet overnight. This is the first time I’ve tried this. Has anybody else experienced an issue with this method?

Update: This beer scored pretty low at the competition. It received a 29/50 from one judge and a 31/50 from another. However, it’s main flaw was stylistic -not enough hops and too sweet. I’m usually good at taking criticism, but I do disagree that it was low in hop flavour. Maybe the Galaxy hops threw them off? I would say they’re more peachy than citrusy but this was not noticed. According to Beer Tools this beer should have had 78 IBU’s which does not include the 2 oz of Mosaic that I dry-hopped for 5 days. Oh well.  Here’s what the judge who gave me the 29 had to say:

Aroma: Moderate grainy toasty malt. Not a lot of hops. Some citrus but very faint. No DMS, maybe diacetyl, low fruity esters. 7/12

Appearance: Hazy orange amber. Off-white moderate creamy head. Retention is pretty good. Leaves some lacing. 3/3

Flavour: Moderate caramel toasted bread crust. Hops are very faint. Bitterness is moderately low. Finishes sweet and the sweetness lingers in the aftertaste. some diacetyl maybe and low fruity esters. Moderately low alcohol. 11/20

Mouthfeel: Medium strong body with medium carbonation. Alcohol warmth is low and smooth. No astringency. A little cloying from sweetness. 3/5

Overall Impression: More like an English P.A. It feels a little under attenuated with way too high sweetness for the style. I also got some caramel which I sometimes mix with diacetyl. I didn’t feel any slickness in the mouth so I assume it was caramel which is fine but it was a little high. If you used some specialty malts it might be better to reduce them . Also the hop flavour and … was lacking a little. ( I could not make out a word, the guys writing was terrible)  5/10

At least there were no obvious off flavours. Looking at the recipe it probably was too sweet and malty. I used 11 lbs of pale. 1 lb. of caramel and 12 oz. of my brumalt. I mashed in at 143F for 15 min and decocted a gallon of mash to get to 152F for 1 hour. The final gravity was 1.013 making the ABV 6.09%

 

 

 
9 Comments

Posted by on April 29, 2016 in Feed barley, The beers

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Garden Update

 

Black Einkorn Wheat

Black Einkorn Wheat

Looks a little sparse but at least it’s growing. This picture and the one of the barley was taken on April 10 so it’s a little bigger now. I’ve got one 4 ft. by 10 ft. bed of Einkorn wheat and about 500 sq. ft. of Maris Otter this year so double the square footage from last year.  Einkorn wheat is one of the oldest domesticated grain varieties dating back 10,000 years. It also keeps it’s hull like barley, so even though it must be a pain to process for food it should be great to brew with. Theoretically that is, I haven’t tried it yet. One potential problem is the amount of protein in this grain, a whopping 18% which is twice that of a good malting barley. That’s more protein than some ground beef! So I’m expecting something pretty hazy. According to this study it’s also high in beta carotene and Vitamin A, that’s kind of a bonus. Here’s a good description of Einkorn that also includes some recipes and here’s a description of some other ancient grains worth experimenting with if you can find them. Also check out this fantastic article all about hulled wheat 

This picture of the barley was taken on the same day

Maris Otter

Maris Otter

 
2 Comments

Posted by on April 25, 2016 in Einkorn Wheat, Garden videos

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Brumalt, Honey malt, Melanoidin malt Part 2

Comparing some malts

Comparing some malts

This malt has been a real challenge. I’ve tried to make it 10 times varying the process each time. My goal has been to make a malt that tastes like Honey malt. So far I’ve come close but not close enough. I wanted to re-do this one as well because a few people had asked me and I was wondering myself, what the difference was between Brumalt and a dark Munich or Aromatic malt.  I don’t have much information on Brumalt in the textbooks that I have so I’ve been doing this mostly by trial and error. I’ve been measuring my results with store bought malts (Honey and melanoidin) comparing pH, colour,  extract and flavour.

As you may know Honey malt is made by the Gambrinus malting company right here in my home province of British Columbia Canada so I had to ask if they would give me any information on how it’s made. They wouldn’t of course, the recipe is a closely guarded secret but they were nice enough to give me a tour of the plant which you can see here. Like the name says it tastes like honey but it’s a dark honey flavour and has an almost wine-like fermented quality to it.

Barley recently emptied from the steep tank to a Saladin box at Gambrinus Malting Ltd.

Barley recently emptied from the steep tank to a Saladin box at Gambrinus Malting Ltd.

The first thing I noticed when comparing malts is that store bought melanoidin and Honey malt have a lower pH than Aromatic malt or a Munich of a similar Lovibond. So what causes this low pH if it’s not the colour?

According to the descriptions I’ve read, after a 6 day germination the green brumalt is piled up and covered with a tarpaulin or if it’s made in a box system all ventillation is cut off and the malt heats up to as much as 50C due to respiration, usually within 24 hours. (Munich is only allowed to reach 25 C). Once enough carbon dioxide builds up the malt stops growing and cools down but the enzymes continue to develop which create a malt with a lot of “low molecular weight sugars and amino acids” (Kunz 2004 p.180)  In Malts and Malting, Briggs states that this phase lasts 30-40 hours (Briggs 1998 p. 714) Kunz states 36 hours.

A few more details in Brewing and Malting include a moisture content of 48% and an increase in temperature during the last 36 hours of germination to 40-50C. Sometimes heat was added “…with a low flame”  Kunz also states “Melanoidin malt… contributes, by virtue of it’s low pH to flavour stability…” (Kunz 2004 p. 180)

In Jean DeClercks A Textbook of Brewing he describes the practice of “Thickening the Piece” “…used for the preparation of malts with a rich aroma. It simply consists of making the piece into a thick heap on the last two days of flooring. The temperature rises to 50C and enzymatic activity becomes very intense. Pre-formed sugars are formed in large amounts and there is considerable proteolysis.” (DeClerck 1957 p.177) Something else jumped out at me in the DeClerck text when he described an investigation carried out by Luers and Gottschneider on the effects of different proportions of CO2 on malting. With 20% CO2 in the air during germination the presence of ethanol was detected. (DeClerck 1957 p 175) Is this why I’m detecting a wine-like fermented flavour and aroma from Honey malt?

A while ago I made an acid malt by placing green malt into a sealed ziploc bag keeping it warm at 35-40C for 36 hours.  The ideal environment to promote the growth of Lactobacillus bacteria which is naturally present on the husks, is at 37C in an anaerobic environment.  So it makes sense that some amount of acidification is happening during this couching phase of the brumalt process.

In order to mimic these natural occurrences on a small scale I had to enclose the malt in a ziploc bag to seal out the oxygen. I then added some heat to keep the temperature at 37C This worked well and I was able to get a malt with the pH at the same level as Honey malt after 16 hours at 37C before raising the temperature to 50C to stew. But I wanted to see if I could make it in a way that was closer to the descriptions.  I tried it once in a small cooler loosely covered and the temperature rose to 42C due to respiration, but it took three days and I was concerned that the malt would overgrow. When this happens the malt will taste bitter and sprouty. I then bagged the grain for a period to acidify it just like before but this time it didn’t work. After kilning the pH was not lower, I thought that perhaps the hot couching may have killed off the  bacteria.

Honey malt left, my brumalt center, batch #7 on right. 18 hr stew at 50C vs 8 hr.

Honey malt left, my brumalt center, batch #7 on right. 18 hr stew at 50C vs 8 hr.

PH is also affected by colour of course, generally speaking the darker the malt the lower the pH, but a characteristic of Honey malt is that it lacks the roasted or toasty flavours you would get from a dark malt due to the lower curing temperature. The colour comes from the melanoidins developed during stewing.  When you add a stewing phase at  50C 122F proteolytic enzymes break down the proteins into sugars and amino acids which when combined with heat in a moist environment create melanoidins which give you malty flavours and colour. You can control the amount of colour by varying the time your malt spends at this stewing phase. After experimenting I found that 8 hours at 50C will give me a colour around 25-30 L, similar to Honey malt. Of course that will vary with the barley used and the amount of protein in the grain. Roasted malts on the other hand which are created when the malt is dry and at a higher temperature will give you more roasted flavours, sort of like the formation of toast vs. bread crust.

DSC02148

Comparing pH of my brumalt to Honey malt – just pure luck that they’re exactly the same, other batches are not.

DSC02150One test that I’ve been using to compare malts is meant to measure the soluble sugar and extract potential (sort of). It’s not a scientific test and not very consistent but since it’s just comparative it does give some insight as to how a malt is made. I’ve been using this test because it’s quick. A measured amount of grain (1.6 oz) is weighed and crushed and mixed with 250 mL of boiling water. The use of boiling water was meant to inactivate the enzymes but since the temperature of the water drops as it’s added to the sample some of the enzymes  survive and end up converting some of the starches.The sample is allowed to settle and cool and then is measured with a refractometer.

In a true cold water extract test the water is mixed with a solution of ammonia to inactivate the enzymes. Cold water extracts are used to measure the amount of soluble sugars or “pre-formed sugars” there are, which tells you how well modified a malt is, the higher the number the more thorough the modification.

The results that I’ve gotten just using boiling water are quite telling. Honey malt gets a very high brix number similar to a pale malt that I made. My Brumalt was a close second, Munich scored lower and caramel malt scores very low.  So since this test is actually showing us the diastatic power or even the extract potential it would lead me to believe that honey malt is kilned at lower temperature than Munich. Keeping the kilning temperature below 50C until the moisture content is below 10% will not destroy as many enzymes.

In a true hot water extract test the malt is mashed according to a very specific schedule and what you find out is the potential extract of a malt.  I tried my own version of this test as well with small 50g samples comparing Honey malt, Munich 30L, Aromatic, Melanoidin and my own. Although my test was crudely done Honey malt still came out on top with the highest brix reading, mine was still second. 

Here are some of the things I’ve tried with these these test batches:

Germination temperatures, 1. warm throughout, 2. warm during the last 3 days and 3. warm for the last day only.  Warm germination temperatures during the final phase of germination promote the development of proteolytic enzymes, the enzymes which act on proteins. From what I’ve read the longer the germination the more enzymes will develop and to have a long germination the temperature must be kept at 13C or 55F.  The warmer the germination the faster the grain grows. What seems to work best (for my barley) is 6 days at 13 then a day at 22C.

Couching, I’ve tried a few different lengths of time to get a lower pH and determined that with my barley, 16 hours at 37C with a shorter rest at 50C for 8 hrs, both in a sealed ziploc bag and low kilning temperatures  gives me the same pH and colour.

High kilning- raising the temperature to 60C while there is still 25-30% moisture. Usually done with Munich malt for maltier flavour and for colour, this will lower the diastatic power of the malt. I don’t seem to be having any problems achieving colour with kilning temperatures below 50C, the amount of colour is dependant of the length of time it spends stewing at 50C. This could be an indicator of a high level of protein in my barley. So I settled on using low kilning temperatures to maintain the enzymatic power as much as possible.  As well I’ve also tried different curing temperatures and I’ve found to minimize the roasty character the curing temperature must be kept below 200F. The biggest changes in colour and pH occur during the curing phase, a half hour can make a huge difference.

What I’ve achieved so far is a sweet malt, not roasty and with the same pH and colour as Honey malt. It’s very unique and I’ll be using it whenever a recipe calls for melanoidin malt but it has more of a tart flavour and is missing the deep honey-like and almost vinous flavour characteristic in Honey malt. I am not going to give up trying to figure out this malt but there are a lot of variables at every stage. Along with my procedure, the variety of barley and it’s protein content could be affecting my results as well as the scale at which it’s produced. As well since bacteria seem to be involved it’s flavour characteristics could be due to the local environment in which it is malted or where the barley was grown which is literally 1000 km away. Unfortunately I have to put this malt on hold since I’ve used almost all of the barley I grew last year. This is the schedule that comes closest so far:

This will give you a sweet yet sour malt (low pH) that’s around 30L and maintains it’s diastatic power.

Steep until 48%

Germinate at least 6 days at 13C, acrospires at 3/4  then 24 at room temp. 22C (acrospires on average are now the full length of grain)

Couch (lactic acidification phase) in a zip-loc bag sealed for 16 hours at 37C

ramp up temp to 50C (proteolysis phase) and hold for 8-10 hours for about a 30L colour, Add more time for more colour 16-18 hrs = around 60L

Kiln at 40-45C for 24 hours or until moisture is below 10%

Cure:

1 hour at 175F  79C

1 hour at 185F  85C

3 hours at 190C  88C

 

 

 

 

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

 
The Meandering Meadery

Cultivating fermented food and drinks one jar at a time

Sprowt Labs

Home Malting Equipment for the Home Brewer

Brülosophy

They Who Drink Beer Will Think Beer

Immaculate Brewery

Growing, malting and brewing beer

Creative Brewing

by Scott Ickes

A Brewer's Wife

Law librarian, brewer's wife and mom of three girls (not necessarily in that order)

From Plants to Beer

The real route of beer

My Own Home Brew

My record and experience in brewing

F Words I Love

Fresh. Frugal. Fermented. Free.

Romping & Nguyening

Romping around the world and Nguyening since March 2014.

Brewing Beer The Hard Way

Growing, malting and brewing beer

Five Blades Brewing

F' Everything, We're Doing Five Blades

The Jax Beer Guy

This Guy Knows Beer -- Also visit www.JaxBeerGuy.com

East Happyland Homebrew Garden Louisiana

Gardening hops, grains, vegetables, and brewing beer in South Louisiana. And they said it couldn't be done....

Bergfast bryggeri

Et lite kjellerbryggeri blir til

The Apartment Homebrewer

Brewing small batches of craft beer in a 650 sqft apartment

Redneck Brewing

Because good beer doesn't require sophistication.

Bishop's Beer Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

The Quest for Edelstoff

Making Liquid Bread

Home Bruin

The homebrewing adventures of a Boston sports fan