Do crystal malts get further converted in the mash?

Something I've not been able to find a definitive answer to:

We add Crystal and Cara- malts such as medium crystal, carapils (carafoam) etc, not just for the flavour but to add body and foaming etc. During their production, these grains have been "mashed in the husk" and their starches converted to sugars of various complexities. So I guess there would be a fair amount of dextrins and longer chain non-fermentable sugars in there.

Say you add a fair amount of Carapils (one example) to a mash but mash low, e.g. 146° F - at that temperature we are well into Beta Amylase territory. Would this enzyme attack the long chain sugars from this malt and break them down into stuff like maltose etc?

This being the case then would it be preferable to add crystals at mashout (way out of the B Amylase zone) to preserve body and dextrins?

I've found it a bit hard to get my head around Palmer's chainsaw and lawnmower analogies

This I got to follow

Funny, I was just reading Palmer whilst on the throne. He says that the process of making crystal malt leaves complex sugars that are not convertible/fermentable. they taste sweet/carmely (I.e. Not in need of conversion from a starch) to us but neither the "chainsaw", "hedge trimmer" or yeasties can metabolize them. Kilning the crystal develops complex branching pattens capable of escaping. Are these sugars calorie free to us? Probably not...

It is my understanding that the darker crystals do not have any sugars that require mashing, but the mashing process is more efficient in extracting/rinsing the sugars out of the grains. If you mash, you can get 30 points out of a pound (80% efficiency), but with steeping it would be more typically 20 points. These sugars are mostly unfermentable.

The lighter crystals (10L) have both sugars that can be steeped, and some that need to be mashed. The starches/sugars that need to be mashed are fermentable.

No, they are not calorie free!

you get some sugars out of crystal malt, just not as much as from pale malt or maris otter. mostly what they are for is a malty flavor

This is a good question and I only understand it at a high level. The unfermentable sugar structure in cara malts is dextrine which is an oddly shaped coupling of a couple glucose molecules that neither b or a-amylase can cleave apart. The enzymes that can do it are the limit-dextrinase but the temp range is 130-140 with denaturing happening over 150F. In other words, as long as you mash around 154F, the dextrines will stay intact.

This one I came across because I'm currently wondering about a recipe I have in Brewtarget. It's a mini-mash with 2-row and crystal 40. Do I set the "method" as mash or steep for the crystal 40? The settings obviously alter the gravity calculation.

derekp83 said:

This one I came across because I'm currently wondering about a recipe I have in Brewtarget. It's a mini-mash with 2-row and crystal 40. Do I set the "method" as mash or steep for the crystal 40? The settings obviously alter the gravity calculation.

Click to expand...

I would set the method as mash.

• see: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/testing-fermentability-of-crystal-malt.208361/

• summary: http://www.woodlandbrew.com/2012/12/fermentability-of-crystal-malt.html

Having grown up around me brewing (I have a picture of her at 6 months happily sitting in the 8 gallon pot holding the big spoon the day I started [and another of one of her daughters the same age in the same pot!]), my daughter caught on to a lot, but not the science.

Not having asked me and being told not to, she mashed a pound of crystal malt with nothing else, spared, and fermented.

It wasn't impressive, but it wasn't bad, either.

I wouldn't have expected it to get anywhere, but . . .

Pushing the Limits: a 90% Crystal Malt Beer (article, discussion).

When ever you get a kit that has base grains along with crystal it is a mini mash and not a steep. Because of the dreaded 1.020 with lme and dme I always would mash these at 143* for an hour to get the most fermentable wort.

First, it's good to read about people brewing enjoyable beer using partial/mini mashes.

hottpeper13 said:

the dreaded 1.020 with lme and dme

Click to expand...

What is "dreaded 1.20"?

When I brew extract+steep with Briess DME and US-05 (or Nottingham), I get 77-80% attenuation (so pretty much within the vendor estimated range for the yeast); with S-04, I get a little less (73-75%). I don't brew extract+steep using Windsor (or London ESB) yeast:

https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/united-states/product-details/windsor-british-style-beer-yeast/ said:

Windsor does not utilize the sugar maltotriose (a molecule composed of 3 glucose units).

Maltotriose is present in wort in an average 10-15% of all malt worts. The result will be fuller body and residual sweetness in beer. Be advised to adjust mash temperatures according to desired result.

Click to expand...

BrewnWKopperKat said:

What is "dreaded 1.20"?

Click to expand...

When I was making kits my brews would finish between 1.016 and 1.020. Now that I'm more experienced they finish where I want them to. So as you dive deeper into the rabbit hole you start implementing processes that make tastier beer. I now have total temp control(no ice bottles), a stir plate with incubation chamber, and an oxygen bottle. What I'm trying to say is maybe the 1.020 is more inexperience and less LME.

hottpeper13 said:

When I was making kits my brews would finish between 1.016 and 1.020. .... more inexperience and less LME

Click to expand...

(emphasis added).

Could also be a kit recipe that wasn't converted well from all-grain to extract+steep.