Enzymes

Yeah man, I was just kidding. Going to have to check out their website. I am wanting to do the same thing over here, I am just hoping that somebody drops a couple of grand in the street. I can't see them shipping it to me here, and if they did, I reckon I would have to remortgage. Haha But, if I can get some tips from them, should be good. It is an exciting time, finally wheatards across the world are being listened to, and we are getting what we want and deserve.

I have emailed Tim at CMC for advice on how to achieve different styles other than crystal. I Will hopefully hear something back before I go on Holiday tomorrow.

igliashon said:

Not sure about their shipping, if I recall it's not too bad if you order a decent quantity. I ordered about 90# of various specialty grains, came out to about $0.98/lb for shipping cost, or around $89 total. Not bad.

I don't mean to come off like I'm trying to promote their product, it's just reaaaaaaalllllllly friggin' exciting to me that I can just *buy* any kind of specialty grain now. Assuming their grains are high-quality, that means I can literally make any kind of beer I want now, with proper color and (presumably) proper flavor. I haven't used their crystal yet so I can't necessarily endorse it, but in the coming months I'll definitely have something to report. I ordered 25# each of crystal 20 and crystal 60, as well as 25# of black patent millet malt and 5# of black unmalted buckwheat rated at 400 SRM (plus some pale millet malt to compare to Grouse). I have no idea why this entire board isn't creaming its collective shorts over this, because to me, this is pretty much the start of the revolution! :fro:

Click to expand...

Did I read in one of your posts that you were going away from the promalt now? How do you plan to mash with the new grains? Thx

max42 said:

Did I read in one of your posts that you were going away from the promalt now? How do you plan to mash with the new grains? Thx

Click to expand...

I've been experimenting quite a bit with just using the enzymes in the grains. However I think using amylase in combination with the natural enzymes will yield the best results. Why do a decoction when you can just add amylase? My current mash schedule is to do a step mash at 120, 135, 145, 158, and 180, then top off with cold water to bring down to 150 and add amylase. But that's a kludgy way of doing it and I think I can streamline it. Either way, the endogenous enzymes do a much better job of breaking down the proteins and glucans, I get a much clearer wort with better head retention (not to mention FLAVOR) doing it this way. No more losing a gallon to trub in every batch!

igliashon said:

My current mash schedule is to do a step mash at 120, 135, 145, 158, and 180, then top off with cold water to bring down to 150 and add amylase.

Click to expand...

This sounds similar to the mash process described in the Gluten Free Brewing, All Grain Brewing Tutorial, by Andrew Lavery that is provided on http://www.glutenfreehomebrewing.org. He does a 40C, 55C, 70C, boil, cool to 70C, then 65C. After the 55C he pulls off "clear liquid" as it contains the enzymes required for conversion . He states these enzymes have an operating temperature range of 60- 70C and are destroyed at temperatures above 70-75C. However, the starches in gluten free malt do not fully gelatinise and become available to be converted to sugar until heated to temperatures of 75-85C. Which is why he removed the enzyme liquid from the mash and keep it at <60C to preserve the enzymes, he then added some extra water to the mash and raised it to 70C to convert whatever starch is available and reduce the viscosity prior to boiling. The boiling (or raising to 85C for 30 min) will gelatinise the rest of the starch. After the mash has cooled he added the enzyme liquid back to the mash and the alpha and beta amylase can go to work on the gelatinised starch.

Is this similar to what you plan to do? I haven't tried it yet as i'm still researching.

Yeah, except I don't intend to grind to a flour or decant the liquid containing the enzymes. One thing no one tells you in brewing chemistry is that things like gelatinization temperatures or enzyme activation temperatures aren't "hard", they're just the top of the bell curve. In any case, in Andrew's method, the only enzymes you're really getting out of the decanted liquid are saccharification enzymes, and those are readily available on the homebrew market. I'd rather just add those than go through the hassle of decantation. Without adding any enzymes or doing any cereal mashing, i.e. just doing a four-step infusion mash with rests at 120, 135, 158, and 180, I've gotten efficiencies up to 68% when using only malted millet, though that gives a very dextrinous wort that is not highly fermentable. The enzymes are necessary to get the efficiency up and decrease the dextrins. I'm trying to figure out if any saccharification is in fact taking place during the 145 rest, as that's a new step I added (foolishly) at the same time that I added the post-mash-out temp-drop and enzyme pitch. It's probable that it could be skipped, but in any case the last beer I did with that method had a 75% efficiency (attenuation TBD, it's still fermenting). What I *should* do is a bunch of one-gallon super-scientific test batches with different mash schedules and enzyme additions. But who's got time for that?

Thanks for the details. Whar enzymes will you be using? Can't wait to hear the results. I'm anxious to start some all grain again.

Those are some great tips. Its exactly what I have been telling people. I have not been very successful with step mashes. The enzymes in millet don't seem to take kindly to it. Not sure if its the temps or the time.

Try a single infusion mash with a mash out. Sparge like normal. Head retention suffers a bit. Clarity is a bit of a problem as well. However, its so much simpler. I have done a lot of batches with just grains and no zymes. I've have been seeing as much as 80% eff. Just my 2 cents.

What temps are you mashing at, and mash out?

Normal mash temps. 149-158. I recommend higher than lower. Mash out at 170. You do higher. Most gluten free grains don't have husks, so you won't extract near as much tannins.

Remember, this is with millet and quinoa. Other grains require different methods.

What efficiency do you usually get this way? Can you post a recipe? Thx

I will soon. If I remember, I will do it tonight when I get home. Busy right now

Apricot Berliner Weisse

Volume - 5.5 gal
Original Gravity - 1.036
Final Gravity - 1.011
ABV - 3.2%
IBU - 3
SRM - 3
Mash Efficiency - 84%

Grain Bill
4# Red Millet 2L 1.021ppg
2# Buckwheat 3L 1.014ppg
1# Flaked Corn .7L 1.037ppg
3# Dried Apricot
4oz Cane Sugar
4oz Maltodextrin

Mash
70 min Double Infusion
Rest @ 150F for 60 min 1.25qt/lb
Mash out @ 170F for 10 min
Batch Sparge

I mash hopped it with Topaz and fermented like a 10 min boil Berliner weisse.

Sorry for the delayed response. Hope this recipe helps. I made this a few months ago. 84% is an outlier for me. Normally its around 74%.

Another point.... don't use dried apricot. They kick off sooo much sulfur. Also, I made the lacto starter with millet.

I've got a question for you: it seems like unless you get your ppg numbers for the grains from a lab, it would be impossible to know them unless you know your efficiency...but if you don't know the ppg of your grains, how can you determine your efficiency? I.e., it's easy to calculate one quantity if you know the other, but if both are unknown, then you can only come up with a curve. I.e. if you know you put in 7 lbs of grain, and got 5.5 gallons of 1.036 wort, you plug that in to the formula for efficiency:

OG = (((grain points)*(pounds of grain))/(gallons of water))*efficiency

So, plugging in the numbers we know:

36 = (((gp)*7)/5.5)*efficiency

So, we can solve for grain points by making this a function of efficiency:

gp = (198)/(7*efficiency)

Meaning that at 100% efficiency, your grain points are ~28.28, whereas at 50% efficiency, they're ~56.57. Of course, realistic ranges for grain points are anywhere from 14 to 34, and realistic efficiencies are 95% or less; knowing that puts some bounds on what the actual numbers could be. Assuming gp = 34, your efficiency would be 83%; since efficiency can't exceed 100%, that makes 28.28 the theoretical minimum gp. So we at least know the grain points are in the range of 28.28 and 34, and the efficiency is at least 83%. But we can't know for sure what the actual values are, correct?

(Note that this formula only works for a single grain type or for the average grain points of all the grains; it gets more complex if you want to use multiple grain types with different unknown grain points values).

These numbers are based on my experience, other's, and also of course malt analysis sheets. Truth is, I have yet to account for system losses or slight measurement inaccuracy. I'm in the process of upgrading my system. Once that is done, I can take more exact brewhouse and mash efficiencies. If I did SMaSH batches, I would have more accurate numbers.

Can you tell me what you mean when you say the numbers are based on "your experience"? I have to wonder about malt analysis sheets for GF grains, since I don't know what sort of mash procedure the labs use, and a barley-style mash may not yield accurate numbers.

I'm not trying to badger you, I'm just trying to figure out how to put non-arbitrary numbers into my recipes. I think you're the only bloke on here who's giving firm numbers, and I'm curious if you can give me a solid source for 'em.

The malt analysis comes from White labs. I assume they use an ASBC lab mash. It involves a very fine crush and many small temperature steps. Should be pretty accurate.

The malt analysis shows an DBFG of 32.5%. Short math: 46*.325= 14.95 = ~1.015 ppg. This is insanely low. I don't believe their malt is that bad. Maybe in the beginning of their malting program. Somewhere on here I found a fellow homebrewer doing an analysis of gluten free grains. CMC red millet was one of their attempts. They came up with 1.021 ppg. If I can find the post, I will link it.

In reality its probably only 1.017-1.019. I like 1.021. It fits into my recipe plan pretty accurately. After knowing this, I was able to figure out other numbers. I understand how this method is flawed. One incorrect measurement amplifies the further down the line you use it, etc.

My background is in electronics engineering not anything to do with chemistry. Doing what I can with my instrumentation.

By the way, the DBFG on CMC buckwheat was 89.5%. That's like 1.041 ppg! I doubt I can get anywhere close to that.

The more important numbers are DP/Alpha enzyme and soluble protein. That is a whole other rant. Hope this helps and makes sense.