Gelatinization VERSUS Malting

[muench1]

I fully understand what gelatinization is and does. Same for malting.

Malting the grain should theoretically, assuming you have good modification, mostly eliminate the need to gelatinize, right? It's not entirely clear from comments around HBT. It seems as though most people approach from the angle that GF grains require gelatinization and lack enzymes, but from everything I understand, they actually have plenty of enzymes and the malting process should (ideally) produce mostly soluble carbohydrates.

It certainly is convenient for conventional beer that mash temps will also gelatinize any remaining starches, but how necessary is that for a quality product? It seems to be mostly just a big question mark because it's one of those things that GF brewing just doesn't share with barley.

Am I missing something?

 

[Pilgarlic]

In this paper, the authors find that the crush isn't terribly important to extract yield, nor is step or multi-rest mashing, nor is the liquid:grist ratio. With respect to extract efficiency, they conclude that so long as you reach gelatinization temps and mash long enough none of the other tested factors much matter (sorry, mill worshipers). This, regardless of the extent of modification. In any event, you'll find some information here. It's not the usual HBT anecdotal fare, but it's worth a good read.
http://www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/papers/2005/G-2005-1123-280.pdf

 

[KevinM]

Theoretically yes, a fully modified malt doesn't need to gelatanize from my understanding. However... modern barley tends to be fully modified due to years of breeding and consistent malting processes. In addition, if the barely malt isn't fully modified (home malting for example), the starches will gelatanize at a relatively low temperature. The temperature needed for beta and alpha enzymes to peak.

Should we be able to fully modify quinoa, millet, or sorghum, we wouldn't need to gelatinize either. However... It's unlikely we will meet those requirements until we develop better processes. This is why we tend to talk about the need to gelatinize. Also, we rarely seem to get an all GF malt beer going. From any recipes I've seen, it's usually malt with the addition of non-malted grain.

I'd be curious about the factors on the paper. I see they were looking for just a yield, but what kind of yield? What kind of beer would they be targeting? (pale lager) And they used barley anyways. Our processes in gluten free would be more like poorly modified malts. With well modified malts, it's pretty much all internal. Have they done a study when they add other non-malted grain? Then they would need enzymes to affect those grains. Would whole vs milled grain affect it at that point? What if they used a grain bill that was more like a stout? As a pale lager, how are they considering the body portion that a mash designed for a stout would act like? Not to mention the traditional multi temperature mashes were originally developed for poorly modified grains, way back in the dark ages of malting. Which is pretty close to where we gluten free brewers are.

Our malts are pretty poor, and it's likely that we will have some that are decently modified, and some poorly modified. Would crush make a difference there as well. While this could be something to consider in the regular all grain, I'm not sure it's all that useful to us ..yet..

 

[onthekeg]

When grains are malted, the starch is converted to sugars and proteins by enzymes to allow the seed to grow. When we gelatinize an unmalted grain, we convert the starch to a form that the enzymes can convert it to sugar along their natural process. We just trick them and speed up the process.

 

[muench1]

onthekeg, that's my understanding. Apparently the real question here, can we figure out how to get full or nearly full modification. Sounds like a fun challenge, but how would I go about testing and comparing malting procedures? I think I can get consistent grain, but how do I determine my extent of modification? Just mash with perfect consistency every time and see what yields more fermentation? Or is there an easier way to test just the malt itself? Managing perfectly consistent mashing and fermentation procedures (and especially conditions like temperature) is gonna be real hard and will seriously compound the variables that are effectively being tested.

 

[BigEd]

I fully understand what gelatinization is and does. Same for malting.

Malting the grain should theoretically, assuming you have good modification, mostly eliminate the need to gelatinize, right?

Correct. Malted grains do not need to be gelantinized.

It's not entirely clear from comments around HBT. It seems as though most people approach from the angle that GF grains require gelatinization and lack enzymes, but from everything I understand, they actually have plenty of enzymes and the malting process should (ideally) produce mostly soluble carbohydrates.

It is un-malted grains which have not had their starches otherwise hydrolyzed that need to undergo gelantinization. This would apply whether or not they are GF AFAIK. Flaked grains for instance can be added directly to the mash because the gelantinization process takes place from the heat & moisture they are exposed to during processing. Raw or otherwise unprocessed, uncooked grains require gelantinization prior to mashing with the excepton of those whose gelantinization temperature is within the temperature of the mash. To clear up a possible misunderstand, un-malted grains do not contain conversion enzymes. The malting process allows those enzymes to be developed. And while gelantinization is also a byproduct of malting, simply subjecting raw, starchy grain to a gelatinization process does not in itself create any enzymes.

It certainly is convenient for conventional beer that mash temps will also gelatinize any remaining starches, but how necessary is that for a quality product?

First, not all starchy grains can be gelatinized at mash temperatures. The reason why starches need to be gelantinized before mashing is that without it the starch molecules cannot truly become part of the mashing process. Until the starches are hydrolyzed they are not soluble in the mash and cannot be reacted upon by the conversion enzymes. Without being gelantized the starches cannot be converted to sugars in the mash.

It seems to be mostly just a big question mark because it's one of those things that GF brewing just doesn't share with barley.

I'm not sure but my guess is that the grains used in GF brewing, just like the grains used in conventional brewing probably have a variety of gelatination temperatures for their various starches. My suggestion is that before you use a grain make sure you find out what it's gelatinization temperature is. That way it can be processed accordingly before mashing if necessary.

 

[muench1]

My suggestion is that before you use a grain make sure you find out what it's gelatinization temperature is. That way it can be processed accordingly before mashing if necessary.

http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Starch_Conversion


But it seems we've already moved on to malting effectiveness as the root issue. Also, when I said "conventional brewing" I meant barley, but wheat rye and oats all gelatinize at mash temps or below.

 

[KevinM]

Generally speaking? We need a good, consistent process, lots of grain, steady humidity and temperature and airflow without fluctuations that we would get doing our several pounds method.

Though heck, I'm still having trouble getting sorghum to sprout like I do other grains.

 

[onthekeg]

onthekeg, that's my understanding. Apparently the real question here, can we figure out how to get full or nearly full modification. Sounds like a fun challenge, but how would I go about testing and comparing malting procedures? I think I can get consistent grain, but how do I determine my extent of modification? Just mash with perfect consistency every time and see what yields more fermentation? Or is there an easier way to test just the malt itself? Managing perfectly consistent mashing and fermentation procedures (and especially conditions like temperature) is gonna be real hard and will seriously compound the variables that are effectively being tested.

If you are purchasing grain in the full bag, there will be a %DP (degree of polymerization) listed. This will aid you in determining if you can just mash or have to take other steps.

 

[KevinM]

Unfortunately onthekeg... this is the gluten free forum. We can't use barley (though there are remote possibilities with chemicals that remain only partially tested, and even then, some people have had gluten reactions to it.) We can't get malted grain, and therefore there is no %DP listing, other than perhaps the company in colorado that is selling malted millet.

Our main process at the moment, is how to get full or nearly full modification with home malting of gluten free grains. Not to mention, that even with full modification, the diastatic power of our grains only meet a bare mininum. Also, how do we calculate our home-malted grains to find the degree of polymerization without lab equipment and the knowhow to use it?

 

[onthekeg]

Thanks Kevin, sorry for the bad info.

 

[KevinM]

Took me a moment when initially seeing the thread too. Used to barley questions coming in here instead of the normal all grain area when talking about areas beyond malting.

 

[muench1]

Not to mention, that even with full modification, the diastatic power of our grains only meet a bare mininum.

I say that's a myth. A lot of them have good enzyme levels, the problem isn't the diastatic power of the grain itself, it's getting full modification and not denaturing the enzymes present.

 

[KevinM]

No myth I'm afraid. I, as well as others, have research papers from 1988-2010 referenced in the threads in regards to this. The Diastatic power depends on malting temperature, moisture content, and germination time. The diastatic power of pale sorghum malt appears to be somewhere in the range of 25-45DP, depending on the specific varietal of sorghum grain. Of course, there's also the issue that DP is a combination rating of alpha and beta amylase and that sorghum has less beta amylase than barley. (It's primarily contained in sorghum's rootlets, which are removed due to the high cyanide compounds.)

The recommended minimum DP for conversion per pound of grain is said to be 35, but this wasn't from any research paper, just various brewing websites, usually regarding barley to adjuncts and people don't recommend going below 65 due to enzyme denaturing during the mashing process. Note that barley's DP can be well over 100-200 per pound on its own.

So... Assuming perfect modification and perfect diastatic power and only doing a pale lager or pale ale, we're fine. We can also malt and mash sorghum to make a weak fermented porrige, bushera, kwete, omuramba, tonto and ajon if we so desired.

my goal, like others, is to be able to more easily create darker, maltier beers including the addition of non-selfconverting adjuncts.

 

[helibrewer]

Whether a grain is malted or not has nothing to do with gelatinization. Gelatinization is the breaking of the starch structure with water and heat. Conversion cannot happen before gelatinization.

Malting is a fancy term for germinated grain. In grain that are under-modified a protein rest is required to help break down proteins and prevent chill haze.

In highly modified grains the protein rest is not required.

The degree of modification has nothing to do with gelatinization and sugar conversion because these things involve carbohydrates, not proteins. Even highly modified grains need to be gelatinized for conversion to occur, this is part of the mashing process.

 

[muench1]

Even highly modified grains need to be gelatinized for conversion to occur, this is part of the mashing process.

It certainly is for barley, wheat and rye. For grains with a gelatinization temp too high to realistically expect any leftover diastatic power, it looks like a decantation mash is the only way to go =(