Why 6 row for pumpkin ales?

It seems like I use 2 row for almost every beer I make, except pumpkin beer. I live the stuff, but 6 row is way more expensive at my local brew store than 2 two.

Does anyone have a good pumpkin ale recipe using 2 row or an argument as to why I can get away without using it?

6 row has more hull material for better filtering and a little more diastatic power for more conversion.
pumpkin likes to clog and absorbs a lot of enzymes.

use two row if you want, sub it for the 6-row recipe, just throw in an extra pound of 2-row and a handfull of rice hulls.

Midwest has a good pumpkin ale....

amandabab said:

6 row has more hull material for better filtering and a little more diastatic power for more conversion.
pumpkin likes to clog and absorbs a lot of enzymes.

use two row if you want, sub it for the 6-row recipe, just throw in an extra pound of 2-row and a handfull of rice hulls.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I had no idea that pumpkin would absorb enzymes. Do you know any of the science behind why this happens, or is it just that by adding more material to the mash it simply acts as a sponge?

Who says you need to use 6-row for a pumpkin beer? Use whatever malt you want, it doesn't matter. You should be using 0.5 to 1.0 lb of rice hulls anyway, so the extra hull is moot. And Pumpkin has very little starch, so you don't need the extra diastatic power of 6-row, plus it's not a high percentage of the grist anyway.

6row has more enzymes than 2row and is typically used when brewing a beer with adjuncts. That is why 6row is suggested when using a pumpkin in the mash.

6-row doesnt have that much more diastatic power than 2-row that you couldnt sub it directly. some rice hulls may or may not be necessary, but you shouldnt need any extra grain

Teromous said:

This is very interesting. I had no idea that pumpkin would absorb enzymes. Do you know any of the science behind why this happens, or is it just that by adding more material to the mash it simply acts as a sponge?

Click to expand...

its the starch in the pumpkin, it uses up enzymes like the grains do

dcp27 said:

its the starch in the pumpkin, it uses up enzymes like the grains do

Click to expand...

I thought amylase was a constantly moving enzyme. Wouldn't a longer mash schedule be sufficient to convert the extra starches?

asidrane said:

6row has more enzymes than 2row and is typically used when brewing a beer with adjuncts. That is why 6row is suggested when using a pumpkin in the mash.

Click to expand...

That logic makes no sense. "Adjuncts" are starchy cereals that need the extra diastatic power for conversion. But pumpkin contains very little starch, something like 1%-2% IIRC. So there's no need for extra enzymes since it's not a starchy adjunct.

dcp27 said:

...its the starch in the pumpkin, it uses up enzymes like the grains do

Click to expand...

Again, there's nearly no starch in the pumkpin to "use up enzymes."

Anyone pondering the starch content of pumpkin should do a google search or just pick up a can of pumpkin puree. It's not brain surgery.

dcp27 said:

its the starch in the pumpkin, it uses up enzymes like the grains do

Click to expand...

By definition, an enzyme is just a reaction catalyst which doesn't get modified during the reaction it's catalyzing. Having more enzymes in the mash is helpful if you have more starch just to speed up the conversion, but nothing is 'using up' the enzymes and everything will still convert if you wait long enough.

I'd agree that 6-row isn't necessary. Pumpkin is mainly sugar and fiber with a little bit of starch. 2-row should have plenty of enzymes to convert what starch is there in a reasonable time.

sorry, used up was a poor choice of words, i simply meant that the added starch from the pumpkin (as little as it may be) would use the enzymes in the same manner as grain and thus slow down the conversion (fairly insignificantly), i.e. make a higher starch:enzyme ratio

Didn't look it up but if I remember pumpkin is only 10-15% convertible starches.. not enough to need extra enzymes..

I use 2-row for my pumpkin ale and just lengthen the rest to 90 minutes (which probably isn't even necessary). Turnes out great and I don't plan to do anything differently in the future.

edmanster said:

Didn't look it up but if I remember pumpkin is only 10-15% convertible starches.. not enough to need extra enzymes..

Click to expand...

It actually has quite a bit less starch than even that. My can of Libby's says 7% total carbs, which includes fiber, sugar, and starch. But the label says fiber and sugar is the entirety of that 7%, thus leaving very little if any starch. One web site says 0.3% starch, which is consistent with the Libby's label.

SpeedYellow said:

It actually has quite a bit less starch than even that. My can of Libby's says 7% total carbs, which includes fiber, sugar, and starch. But the label says fiber and sugar is the entirety of that 7%, thus leaving very little if any starch. One web site says 0.3% starch, which is consistent with the Libby's label.

Click to expand...

Just keep in mind exactly what that label actually means - it means that, per suggested serving size, there is 7% of the suggested daily intake of total carbs (specifically fiber, sugar, and starch) for a recommended 2,000 calorie diet. That does not mean that 7% of the contents of the can is those carbs.

I suspect you are looking at an older recipe. Modern, fully-converted 2-row can do any job 6-row can.

stratslinger said:

Just keep in mind exactly what that label actually means - it means that, per suggested serving size, there is 7% of the suggested daily intake of total carbs (specifically fiber, sugar, and starch) for a recommended 2,000 calorie diet. That does not mean that 7% of the contents of the can is those carbs.

Click to expand...

Utterly wrong, but kudos for confusing things.

The can states that in each 122g, there are 9g of Total Carbs, which includes 5g of Dietary Fiber, 4g of Sugars, with the remainder (unlisted but roughly 0g) being starch. So that's 7% Carbs by weight and very little starch.

I used 2 row for my pumpkin ale this year (first time doing it all-grain) and it worked out fine...the runnings were a little more viscous than I'm used to, but it worked out OK...drinking one now, and it's tasty if I do say so myself...

SpeedYellow said:

Utterly wrong, but kudos for confusing things.

The can states that in each 122g, there are 9g of Total Carbs, which includes 5g of Dietary Fiber, 4g of Sugars, with the remainder (unlisted but roughly 0g) being starch. So that's 7% Carbs by weight and very little starch.

Click to expand...

My mistake - I read the percentages and, wrongly, assumed someone had read the percentages off the nutritional label and were going by that, rather than reading the weights and doing the math.

Still, no need to get snippy/*****ey about a response to a somewhat vague post. We're all friends here, man!

stratslinger said:

My mistake - I read the percentages and, wrongly, assumed someone had read the percentages off the nutritional label and were going by that, rather than reading the weights and doing the math.

Still, no need to get snippy/*****ey about a response to a somewhat vague post. We're all friends here, man!

Click to expand...

What's *****ey is calling somebody out as being wrong when you can't be bothered to spend 30 seconds getting the facts straight first. And you know what they say about making Assumptions!

Like I said, my mistake, and my apologies.

SpeedYellow said:

Utterly wrong, but kudos for confusing things.

Click to expand...

First of all the word your looking for is udderly, like a cow, and B. when is the last time you saw kudos at the supermarket, those were good.

Also to the OP, just use 2row if you prefer, it will work out great.

And yeah, to the OP, 2 row has worked out great in my pumpkin ales, also. Don't think I've had cause to use 6-row in anything as of yet...

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/app...ng-principles/food-classification-charts.html

Says 6.5%.. I was thinking squash since that's basically what pumpkin is..


Winter squash (12.4%) and pumpkin (6.5%) are shown on some charts as starchy, but their starch content is quite a bit lower than potatoes (17.1%). 1 would consider them mildly starchy (or you could consider winter squash as borderline).

stratslinger said:

Like I said, my mistake, and my apologies.

Click to expand...

No sweat, like you said, we're all friends here.

edmanster said:

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/app...ng-principles/food-classification-charts.html

Says 6.5%.. I was thinking squash since that's basically what pumpkin is..


Winter squash (12.4%) and pumpkin (6.5%) are shown on some charts as starchy, but their starch content is quite a bit lower than potatoes (17.1%). 1 would consider them mildly starchy (or you could consider winter squash as borderline).

Click to expand...

I'd have to trust Libby's FDA-compliant labeling over that web page. Libby's says 7% Total Carbs, which is half sugar. So 6.5% can't be correct. But regardless, we agree there's not enough starch in pumpkin to worry about.

This page says 0.3% starch: (seems to have been taken from a book)
http://www.kickas.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=143543

SpeedYellow said:

No sweat, like you said, we're all friends here.

I'd have to trust Libby's FDA-compliant labeling over that web page. Libby's says 7% Total Carbs, which is half sugar. So 6.5% can't be correct. But regardless, we agree there's not enough starch in pumpkin to worry about.

This page says 0.3% starch: (seems to have been taken from a book)
http://www.kickas.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=143543

Click to expand...

I think the web page refers to uncanned and unprocessed pumpkin..