Rinsing alpha amylase for other uses

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ChinaVoodoo

New Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I recently read a research paper on flue curing of tobacco, where they proved that during the flue curing process, alpha amylase breaks down the starches and maltose in the tobacco into fructose and glucose. This process decreases the starch content from 57% to 22% at 42 degrees Celcius over 72 hours.

The thought occurred to me, because I also make beer, that I could take my air cured leaf and increase the sugar content in it by introducing water and alpha amylase.

Question: If I rinse 2-row or 6-row barley malt with cold water, will the water contain amylases that I could use for this process?
 
Yes the enzymes are water soluble, so as long as the grain is crushed, and you let it soak long enough, you should be able to get some enzymes. I think to use them on tobacco you would have to muddle the leaves to break up the cell walls, so the enzymes from the 2 row can get to the starch.
 
Thanks guys,

You both answered my question and gave me another option. After brewing for 15 years, you'd think I would know they had amylase at the brew shop. I just picked some up.
 
I just had a realization. In brewing, alpha amylase functions around 150-165F. In the tobacco study, it functions at 42C. I didn't realize this was significantly cooler until I did the conversion; 42C is only 107.6F.

Here is the study: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00380768.2013.842884

What do you think is the reason for the temperature difference? Possible reasons in my mind would be, one - there are different kinds of alpha amylase; or two - they are the same, but the tobacco starch conversion happens over 72 hours, while the barley conversion happens over only 1 hour, and in theory, you can brew at 107F for 72 hours, but don't because you would get too many unpredictable bacterial and fungal growths if you did.
 
(when was the last time you brewed a pure wheat beer?).

:confused:

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

What do you think is the reason for the temperature difference? Possible reasons in my mind would be, one - there are different kinds of alpha amylase; or two - they are the same, but the tobacco starch conversion happens over 72 hours, while the barley conversion happens over only 1 hour, and in theory, you can brew at 107F for 72 hours, but don't because you would get too many unpredictable bacterial and fungal growths if you did.

Alpha amylase works across a broad temperature range. It just so happens it works faster at the temp range we use it for mashing. I'm sure there are other reasons in tobacco curing not to reach such high temps, but that's not an area I can claim any great knowledge in. So, I think your second option is much more on target.
 
I just had a realization. In brewing, alpha amylase functions around 150-165F. In the tobacco study, it functions at 42C. I didn't realize this was significantly cooler until I did the conversion; 42C is only 107.6F.

Here is the study: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00380768.2013.842884

What do you think is the reason for the temperature difference? Possible reasons in my mind would be, one - there are different kinds of alpha amylase; or two - they are the same, but the tobacco starch conversion happens over 72 hours, while the barley conversion happens over only 1 hour, and in theory, you can brew at 107F for 72 hours, but don't because you would get too many unpredictable bacterial and fungal growths if you did.
Alpha amylase will also work at fermentation temperatures, albeit much more slowly (about 5X slower than on tobacco curing, and 30X slower than in a mash) than in a mash or tobacco curing.

Brew on :mug:
 
:confused:

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

He was saying I shouldn't feel bad about not knowing the brew store would have alpha amylase for sale because there is not much call for it. An all wheat beer would be one reason for searching it out.
 
He was saying I shouldn't feel bad about not knowing the brew store would have alpha amylase for sale because there is not much call for it. An all wheat beer would be one reason for searching it out.

An all wheat malt beer converts just fine. Probably faster than barley. That's what was confusing. Check the degrees Lintner statement on a bag of wheat malt sometime if you don't believe me.

Now unmalted wheat doesn't, but neither does unmalted barley. The wheat vs barley distinction has nothing in the world to do with proper conversion. Malted vs unmalted has everything in the world to do with it, but that didn't seem to be the point.
 
:confused:
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Since the total diastatic power of the grain bill (more properly called the total Lintner for the grain bill) can be written as:
Σ(lintner for grain * weight of grain) / (total batch grain weight)

And we know that unmalted wheat has a Lintner value of zero and to successfully convert the complex carbohydrates to disaccharides, we need a total Lintner value of 30, I'd say that it has exactly to do with the topic at hand. Of course, if you like mashing grains and getting now sugar out, that's entirely up to you.
 
Since the total diastatic power of the grain bill (more properly called the total Lintner for the grain bill) can be written as:
Σ(lintner for grain * weight of grain) / (total batch grain weight)

And we know that unmalted wheat has a Lintner value of zero and to successfully convert the complex carbohydrates to disaccharides, we need a total Lintner value of 30, I'd say that it has exactly to do with the topic at hand. Of course, if you like mashing grains and getting now sugar out, that's entirely up to you.

You didn't say anything about unmalted wheat until now.
 
You didn't say anything about unmalted wheat until now.

Even when wheat is malted, you only have a Lintner value of 60-90, which means that you have to have a maximum of 2-3lbs of non-diastatic grains for each pound of unmalted wheat. Compared with 2-Row barley malt, which has about 140° L, that isn't a very high value and you'd find yourself needing to add Amylase.
 
Even when wheat is malted, you only have a Lintner value of 60-90, which means that you have to have a maximum of 2-3lbs of non-diastatic grains for each pound of unmalted wheat. Compared with 2-Row barley malt, which has about 140° L, that isn't a very high value and you'd find yourself needing to add Amylase.

Where are you getting that data from? Briess's wheat malt is pretty typical of most maltsters', and clocks in at 160-180 Lintner.

http://www.brewingwithbriess.com/Assets/PDFs/Briess_PISB_WheatMaltRed.pdf

Weyermann doesn't list diastatic power, specifically, but their malt specification sheets give some inkling about this. Pale wheat malt can be used up to 100%, with a 20 min. maximum for saccharification. By comparison, their general Pilsner malt gives 15 minutes maximum, so the diastatic power between the two must be comparable.

http://www.weyermann.de/downloads/s...nn_Specifications_englisch_Crop 2015_new2.zip

Crisp lists 143 Lintner minimum on their site.

http://www.crispmalt.co/files/Wheat Malt.pdf


I really think DP well north of 100 Lintner is typical for wheat malts. There are exceptions, yes, but they are very much the exceptions and not the rule.
 

OK, but according to some sources, even a standard German wheat malt like Weyermann's has ">300 WK" -- or >90 Lintner. Thank you for providing the link, but I'm not swayed by a very general, citationless blog post from six years ago when more current and specific evidence points to wheat malt having, in general, diastatic power equal to or greater than that of malted barley. It also specifically treats "German" wheat malt, and not others.

As always, though, products will vary by maltster and by season.
 
Such as the sack of Rahr Red Wheat Malt I got here with a DP of 220, going by the red tag.

Thanks for the input. I tried checking for a typical seasonal malt sheet from Rahr, but came up empty. Drives me crazy when maltsters won't supply this kind of information - there's almost always a range they can supply which will be pretty accurate, but not all do.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top